Search for: "Doe v. United States" Results 541 - 560 of 39,454
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jun 2010, 9:49 am
United States [Cornell LII backgrounder, JURIST report] that the failure to register provision [18 USC § 2250] of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) does not apply retroactively to offenses occurring before SORNA's enactment. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 11:32 am
 As you have undoubtedly heard by now, on June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 1:27 pm by Sean Toomey
Earlier this year there was hope in the food and drug industries that the Supreme Court would revisit and possibly revise the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine, also known as the Park Doctrine, by granting certiorari to the Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. [read post]
7 Jul 2020, 7:33 am by Derek T. Muller
Washington—and the per curiam opinion in Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 5:05 pm by INFORRM
 The plaintiffs, whom the court will collectively call `Music Group,’ filed this case against John Doe defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 12:12 pm by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
United States Court of Appeals Employment Multiemployer pension plans If a sale of a participant in a multiemployer pension plan had not occurred, everything else had remained the same, and no withdrawal liability would have accrued, then the sale to a buyer that continues the pension contributions does not entail withdrawal liability. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 7:26 am by Matt C. Bailey
On April 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a Federal court’s CAFA jurisdiction is not contingent on certification of a class in United Steel v. [read post]
Smith, SCOTUS held that a state rule requiring a child’s birth certificate to list the non-biological father if he is married to the biological mother but that does not allow both same-sex spouses to be listed as parents is unconstitutional discrimination in violation of Obergefell v. [read post]