Search for: "United States v. Fields"
Results 5781 - 5800
of 5,962
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2007, 5:54 am
Because the "Supremacy Clause" of the United States Constitution says so: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . . [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 4:41 am
And while he seems more open to embracing a positive vision of race and thinking about the state's inevitable role in constructing identity, his vision may also be more tied to context and less generalizable across cases.In my view, the story of Kennedy's opinion in the desegregation cases began not with Bakke or Grutter, but with a voting-rights decision issued last year in a case called League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 12:22 pm
In particular, public wrath is displayed against those who would challenge "age of consent" laws, which are higher in the United States (now effectively 18 in all states due to Federal statutes) than in most other societies. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 10:57 am
In 1992, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) determined that, during the time in which the offenders under study were incarcerated, "the Department of Corrections had not promulgated any standards to govern the development of treatment programs in the prisons and field units" (p. iii). [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 8:31 am
Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. [read post]
21 Sep 2007, 11:50 pm
Schwab Case No. 05-1991-Cr-7249-AXXX because persons working in recognized medical fields will not participate in taking life,as the Defendant has stated in his Motion. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 1:12 am
In one case, Riegel v. [read post]
19 Sep 2007, 9:34 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
19 Sep 2007, 5:33 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 2:35 pm
Nor does the statute, facially or in its application, place men and women on an uneven playing field. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 5:27 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Sep 2007, 9:51 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 8:46 am
As Justice Brandeis noted, in his famous dissent in New State Ice Co. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2007, 7:50 am
"The opinion in Fields v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 3:47 pm
United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923). [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 5:24 am
" State v. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 10:48 am
Would Brown v. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 6:43 am
[5] Verizon v. [read post]
3 Sep 2007, 7:28 am
The result was a claim for injunctive relief that was tried before United States District Court Judge Mark Kravitz in Connecticut during the past two weeks. [read post]
22 Aug 2007, 12:22 pm
In United States v. [read post]
