Search for: "United States v. Burden" Results 5821 - 5840 of 9,605
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Mar 2008, 5:59 am
Reg. 46,716-843 (Aug. 21, 2007)(to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 1)(the "Final Rules") under his decision in Tafas v. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 10:18 am by John Elwood
United States, 15-8629, and Beckles v. [read post]
Moreover, his votes in the COVID-related cases from this past summer, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 11:13 am by Helen Alvare
Both sides agreed that having one provider would probably constitute an “undue burden” under the Supreme Court’s 2016 Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 6:42 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Gameologist Group, LLC v. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 6:50 pm by David Post
For this proposition, the court relied on Supreme Court’s opinion in Eldred v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 9:46 am
Here’s the abstract of Reining in the Purcell Principle: About a month before the 2014 election, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of four extraordinary orders in election law cases. [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 7:48 pm
  The Tax Court rejected this argument, but summarized the controlling law as follows:In [United States v. [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 12:54 pm by Courtney Hostetler
United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990), held that the acquittal evidence can be introduced in subsequent trials, without falling afoul of the constitutional right against double jeopardy (which incorporates the collateral estoppel doctrine). [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 6:50 pm by David Post
For this proposition, the court relied on Supreme Court’s opinion in Eldred v. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 6:06 am by Gerald Maatman, Jr.
In the third post of our series on workplace class action issues, this blog posting focuses on the statistical study of class certification rulings throughout the Unites States in 2016. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 7:24 am by Peter Shane
Where Kavanaugh and Gorsuch parted company with the majority was in their preference for applying the “demonstrated, specific need” standard of United States v. [read post]