Search for: "UNited States v. White" Results 5761 - 5780 of 7,200
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jan 2011, 7:31 am by Andrew Frisch
United Emergency Animal Clinic, Inc., 390 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.2004) (considering the applicability of § 541.304 to veterinarians); Parker v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 8:36 am by Charley
Schwarzenegger in the federal United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm by Law Lady
Medicare Fraud: CLINIC OWNERS GET PRISON FOR STEALING MEDICARE FUNDS, United States v. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 10:12 am by Eugene Volokh
United States purposes), but I think that Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion is consistent with Justice Alito’s concurrence on this point, and the concurrence certainly should be seen as important to understanding that majority opinion.) [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 6:38 am by Charon QC
My ex-wife used to roll her eyes when I said, as one does, non haec in foedera veni [Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 2:13 pm by Alfred Brophy
  (You may recall that the United States outlawed the importation of enslaved people in 1808, but in the early 1820s other countries had not yet moved to prohibit the international slave trade.) [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 1:14 pm by admin
The Supreme Court’s June decision in United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 1:14 pm by admin
The Supreme Court’s June decision in United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 8:33 am by Eric
Meanwhile, Verizon wants to stop distributing white pages directories [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 10:22 pm by legalinformatics
Abstract: This essay reads the public controversy surrounding Sonja Sotomayor’s nomination and confirmation to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 3:02 pm by Eugene Volokh
” The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam — which combined account for 97.7% of all believers — are monotheistic. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 3:01 am
Toomey, citing School District 6 v NYSHRB, 35 NY2d 371, said that such a personnel policy, even if the product of negotiations under [the Taylor Law] would violate the State’s Human Rights Law and is therefore a prohibited subject of negotiations.* See Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [read post]