Search for: "United States v. Mitchell" Results 541 - 560 of 907
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Feb 2024, 1:14 pm by Amy Howe
Specifically, it concluded, the presidency is not an “office … under the United States,” and the president is not an “officer of the United States. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 12:02 pm by Marty Lederman
For starters, there’s the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which requires a state to register for federal elections any person who resides outside the United States and (but for such residence) would be qualified to vote in that state if it was the last place in which the person was domiciled before leaving the United States. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 10:31 am by Michael Grossman
After evaluating her claim, the district court ruled in favor of Match.com, citing Title 47, Section 230 of the United States Code, known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA). [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 1:01 pm by John Elwood
United States, 11-820. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 6:22 pm
Colb In my column for this week, I discuss the case of United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2017, 8:00 am by Guest Blogger
Fortunately, Houston is one of the most resilient cities in the United States, and optimism can be found on every corner. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 4:07 am by Eric Segall
" I began to learn that hard lesson when I was a young lawyer at the United States Department of Justice. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 2:48 pm by John Elwood
United States, 17-778, United States v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 7:56 am
Marzano-Lesnevich, was brought by Roy Innes, whose four-year-old daughter, Victoria, was removed from the United States to Spain, the mother’s native country, in January 2005 without his knowledge or consent. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 4:04 am by Edith Roberts
At The Atlantic, Sarah Seo argues that Mitchell v. [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 4:07 pm
For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM. 07a0261p.06 2007/07/11 Parks v. [read post]
16 Nov 2021, 8:34 am by Josh Blackman
This position parallels the United States Supreme Court's current approach to the Free Exercise Clause pursuant to Employment Division v. [read post]