Search for: "United States of America v. In the Matter of the Application of the United States"
Results 601 - 620
of 1,383
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jul 2015, 2:59 am
The United States of America v Nolan, heard 15 July 2015. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 8:52 am
Select Entangled Legalities beyond the State Entangled Legalities beyond the State pp i-i PDF HTML Select Global Law Series - Series page Global Law Series - Series page pp ii-ii PDF HTML Select Entangled Legalities beyond the State - Title page Entangled Legalities beyond the State - Title page pp iii-iii PDF HTML Select Copyright page Copyright page pp iv-iv PDF HTML Select Contents Contents pp v-vii… [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 7:53 pm
United StatesDocket: 11-959Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a false statement is made to an individual who has no connection whatsoever to the federal government, the false statement is nonetheless made in a “matter within the jurisdiction” of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
31 Jan 2015, 8:24 pm
Also in June last year, the United Nations Human Rights Council unanimously approved a parallel project “[r]equest[ing] the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue the work on domestic law remedies to address corporate involvement in gross human rights abuses, and to organize consultations with experts, States and other relevant stakeholders”. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:00 pm
United States 14-1145Issue: Whether, under Holland v. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 2:03 am
In 1952, the United States was involved in the Korean War. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 3:45 pm
See United States v. [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 3:45 am
A selected Federal Government candidate will be assigned to the equivalent of Executive Schedule Level V. [read post]
10 Sep 2011, 10:04 am
The main problem with Guantánamo, we suggested, was not that the United States was detaining people as “enemy combatants” but that it was not detaining the “right people. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 12:22 pm
In particular, public wrath is displayed against those who would challenge "age of consent" laws, which are higher in the United States (now effectively 18 in all states due to Federal statutes) than in most other societies. [read post]
3 Jul 2022, 1:36 pm
This view eventually prevailed, resulting in the formation of the United States of America under the law of the United States Constitution. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:11 am
Merely stating the seemingly obvious--that the unit of analysis is “the case”--does not solve all problems. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 4:15 am
AIA Sec. 18 recites as follows: (C) A petitioner in a transitional proceeding who challenges the validity of 1 or more claims in a covered business method patent on a ground raised under section 102 or 103 of title 35, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date set forth in section 3(n)(1), may support such ground only on the basis of– (i) prior art that is described by section 102(a) of such title of such title (as in effect on the day before such… [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 1:04 am
On Wednesday 15 July the Court will hear the appeal of The United States of America v Nolan regarding the appellant’s redundancy following the closure of her US military base, RSA Hythe. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:11 am
For example, 24 (or 12.7%) of the 2009 securities lawsuit filings involved companies that are domiciled outside the United States. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 7:55 am
USPTO trade mark application - check. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:19 am
Adds the New York Times editorial page: There’s no explanation given in the memo for how the United States knew Mr. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 9:17 am
The Corporations carry on business internationally and have affiliated offices throughout southern Ontario and the United States. [read post]
2 Jan 2009, 4:57 am
The US-VISIT program also receives biometric data collected by Department of State (DOS) consular offices in the visa application process. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 5:00 pm
United States without reaching the central question presented by the cert petition, which involved clarifying the rule of Marks v. [read post]
