Search for: "King v. United States Government" Results 581 - 600 of 1,635
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Dec 2018, 11:54 am by Jeff Wurzburg (US)
United States and California (Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00167) (previous HL Pulse discussion here). [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 1:17 pm by Robert Hambrick
King, from the United States Supreme Court makes a mockery of the fourth amendment protection of requiring a Search Warrant with an affidavit based on probable cause that describes with precision the place to be searched as well as what is expected to be found at that place and why it's expected to be found there. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
The Award recognizes Canadians who have excelled in the practice of law and/or made an outstanding contribution to the law or legal scholarship in the United States. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 8:09 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Because the United States continues to enforce the ACA (as its own brief noted), there is still a case or controversy, as there was in Windsor v. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 6:48 am by Joy Waltemath
“Even where the Government declines to intervene, ‘the United States is the real party in interest in any [FCA] suit. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 4:07 am
Back in January, we put up a short post noting the filing of a petition for extraordinary ("King's Bench") review in the case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 1:10 pm by Rick St. Hilaire
”SLAM argues that federal agents cannot take the mask because the government cannot produce sufficient information to show that the mask was stolen or smuggled into the United States pursuant to 19 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Raw Text of Opinion UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MACKLE VINCENT SHELTON, Petitioner, v. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 6:50 am by Aaron Tang
Franita Tolson –   In NAMUDNO v. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 6:07 pm by Alan Rozenshtein
[T]his interest is implicated even when the suit is brought indirectly — against a civilian contractor — rather than directly against the United States itself. [read post]