Search for: "United States v. Circuit Judges" Results 5961 - 5980 of 16,269
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2016, 9:15 am by Alex Loomis, Quinta Jurecic
Stay motion Judge Spath moves on to the defense’s “motion to abate pending the resolution of the United States v. [read post]
21 Oct 2016, 6:39 am by Helen Klein Murillo, Alex Loomis
” Since 1776, the United States has authorized the use of military tribunals for trying espionage and aiding the enemy, neither of which are offenses against international law. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 9:33 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Colvin, October 14, 2016, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit More Bog Entries: Social Security Disability Judges Allegedly Used Racial and Sexual Terms on Claimants’ Applications, July 22, 2016, Boston SSDI Lawyer Blog The post Igo v. [read post]
19 Oct 2016, 5:19 am by SHG
When President Obama nominated then-Second Circuit judge, Sonia Sotomayor, to the Supreme Court of the United States, some of us were more than a little dubious about the selection. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 3:19 pm by Matthew David Brozik
McCollum, decided October 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the trial court—the U.S. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 9:10 am by Alex Loomis
Conceding that no cases were directly on point, Connell cites United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 4:20 am by SHG
Those who do aren’t trying to force anyone else to participate, but the plaintiffs in United Poultry Concerns v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 12:02 pm by Florian Mueller
Within a few days of each other, the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had Apple v. [read post]
11 Oct 2016, 10:00 pm
Post By Blog Staff Following the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the Alice Corp. v. [read post]
Last December, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the Lanham Act’s disparagement provision unconstitutional, stating that while the rejected trademarks “convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities,” the First Amendment “protects even hurtful speech. [read post]