Search for: "Howard v. United States (two Cases)" Results 41 - 60 of 768
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Oct 2022, 10:46 am by Bernard Bell
  Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae, New York v. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 12:04 pm by admin
The United States Court of Appeals explained its understanding of complexity that should remove a case from the province of the seventh amendment: “A suit is too complex for a jury when circumstances render the jury unable to decide in a proper manner. [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 12:15 pm by Josh Blackman
Three days later, Judge Silberman noticed an appeal to the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States and to the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 6:30 am by Mark Graber
Kansas (1887) and was the lone dissenter in United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 4:29 am by Emma Snell
The memo from Gilbert Cisneros, the defense undersecretary for personnel, is an attempt to give troops the same benefits regardless of where they are stationed, now that 13 states have moved to ban abortion after Friday’s reversal of Roe v. [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 12:28 am by Bill Henderson
  Note that I write this post during the public hearings for the January 6th Commission, which is faithfully documenting an attempted coup of the United States government that would not have been possible without a rampant populist fervor that continues to this day. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
(Perhaps it is two broad questions—one about legal responsibility and one about moral responsibility—but I think the two are connected enough to be worth discussing together.) [read post]
3 Apr 2022, 9:30 pm by ernst
  He was teaching English at Howard University when the United States entered the First World War in 1917. [read post]
3 Feb 2022, 7:58 pm by Ediberto Roman
The promise of the nation’s first Black woman on the United States Supreme Court is a dramatic, historic change. [read post]
21 Jan 2022, 12:49 pm by Andrew Hamm
In the first Jam case, the Supreme Court ruled that the IFC did not have absolute immunity as an international organization, but only “restrictive immunity,” meaning that plaintiffs could sue the IFC for claims involving its commercial activity carried on in the United States, or they could sue if the IFC had waived its immunity. [read post]