Search for: "District of Columbia v. Armes" Results 581 - 600 of 1,084
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2015, 5:15 am by Guest Blogger
  But in an amicus brief supporting the Government, 22 States and the District of Columbia—including 10 States with a Federal Exchange—pointed out that accepted principles of federalism prevent Congress from imposing such a condition without clearly putting the States on notice. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 12:52 pm by Lyle Denniston
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had used to strike down that 2008 statute. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 12:31 pm by Stephen Knaster
In an interesting and uncommon intersection between securities law, curbing human rights abuses and freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently agreed to re-consider whether the SEC can require companies to disclose whether their products contain “conflict minerals. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 10:39 am by Lyle Denniston
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 2:28 pm by Lyle Denniston
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to reconsider a case about requiring U.S. businesses to disclose whether they are selling products that may exploit the human misery of the civil war in the Congo. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 11:44 am by Rory Little
District of Columbia, the Court’s 2008 Second Amendment “right to bear arms” decision, noted that short-barreled shotguns are “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 9:38 am
District Court for the District of Maryland – the U.S. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 7:58 am by Joy Waltemath
Additionally, the district court concurred with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Martin v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 8:10 am
The relevant passage at issue is this one from Scalia’s majority opinion for the Court in District of Columbia v. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 2:42 pm
Alternatively, Cooney argues that the four-part test is too stringent in light of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
Fifth Avenue Chrysler Center, Inc,, 454 P.2d 244, 247 (Alaska 1969).ArizonaNo Arizona court has directly passed on innovator liability, but the federal district court in the Darvocetlitigation twice held that the theory was incompatible with Arizona law. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 10:04 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Here is how the Court of Appeals (Parker, Livingston and Droney) sums it up:In District of Columbia v. [read post]