Search for: "US v. Levelle Grant"
Results 5541 - 5560
of 9,108
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Dec 2013, 1:30 pm
In Latinos Unidos de Napa v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 9:58 am
The first one was Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 6:27 am
In Millard v Miller, No. 05-C-103-S, 2005 U.S. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 10:01 am
Pape, Masson v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 9:02 am
(Note that much the same argument could be used for deeply held secular philosophical objections. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 4:47 am
`Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . . [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 4:43 am
Say that you feel a religious obligation to use a prohibited drug — hoasca (the drug at issue in Gonzales v. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 3:37 pm
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the mere fact that the Board recommended a downward departure to risk level two did not require the Supreme Court to grant a downward departure to risk level one. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 9:35 am
Presumably responding to deep disarray in the courts of appeals on the question of Lanham Act standing, the Court granted review. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 5:10 am
A big difference there is that the perceived public interest in getting businesses to use green technologies may have an impact on both the rate of royalties that a court regards as reasonable and the exercise of discretion in granting injunctive relief". [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 2:55 pm
Fuller and People v. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 9:35 am
Employment Division v. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm
The clear and convincing evidence standard is an intermediate standard between the high standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ used in criminal proceedings and ‘fair preponderance ’ used in ordinary civil proceedings as held in Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 9:17 am
NLRB v. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 9:02 am
Those two cases are the contraceptive mandate cases, on which the Court has just granted cert. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 7:11 am
In the case, Caesar v. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:56 pm
City of Irvine v. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm
To utilise the section 17 (3) power either to house the claimant separately or even to accommodate her by granting her a licence to live at the flat in which her aunt and her cousins are housed would, in my judgment, be using the power for a collateral and improper purpose. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:30 pm
To utilise the section 17 (3) power either to house the claimant separately or even to accommodate her by granting her a licence to live at the flat in which her aunt and her cousins are housed would, in my judgment, be using the power for a collateral and improper purpose. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 1:00 pm
Three updates in Aamer v. [read post]
