Search for: "United States v. Sharp"
Results 541 - 560
of 1,454
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2018, 11:34 am
While unnerving, attorneys fighting for ICWA say the decision is not applicable throughout the United States. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 6:20 am
At ACSBlog, Rick Hasen discusses United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 2:03 pm
Pereira before him, had lived in the United States for less than 10 years when he was served with an NTA. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:33 am
United States (holding that the statute of limitations in the Court of Claims was mandatory and non-waivable, although avoiding the jurisdictional label) had retroactively recast Bowles as similarly non-jurisdictional. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 6:16 am
The case is a criminal one, State v. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 1:15 pm
That’s not a crime under North Carolina law, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held today in State v. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 9:02 pm
United States, and Weiner v. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 10:52 am
It's now out in print, from the Cambridge University Press: Mark V. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 3:50 pm
§ 1151 (definition of Indian country); § 1153(a) (providing for exclusive federal jurisdiction for enumerated crimes). [2] United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 3:50 pm
§ 1151 (definition of Indian country); § 1153(a) (providing for exclusive federal jurisdiction for enumerated crimes). [2] United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 1:10 am
It noted that the problem of deciding the Court’s temporal jurisdiction had been considered with varying results in previous cases, notably Blecic v Croatia (2006) 43 E.H.R.R. 48, Moldovan v Romania (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 16, Balasoiu v Romania (App. no. 37424/97), 2 September 2003, and Kholodova v Russia (App. no. 30651/05), 14 September 2006. [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 9:30 pm
United States and ex parte Endo. [read post]
30 Aug 2021, 9:00 pm
In sharp contrast to the Court’s ruling on the CDC’s moratorium, the Court in Trump v. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 8:56 am
First, “the public accusations by Van Liew that Stansfield was ‘corrupt and a liar’” were fully protected speech: These remarks about a local public official constituted political speech and were at the core of the speech that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects. [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 6:17 pm
See NLRB v. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 9:38 am
Sharps v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 12:41 pm
The United States’ withdrawal will take up to four years to complete under the terms of the accord. [read post]
25 May 2017, 1:54 pm
United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), which outlined the limits of free speech, particularly in war time. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 3:54 am
United States and United States v. [read post]
2 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
See United States v. [read post]
