Search for: "United States v. Central State Bank" Results 601 - 620 of 1,077
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2015, 12:47 pm by CJLF Staff
United States could have far-reaching impact on Americans  convicted of felonies. [read post]
7 May 2015, 8:19 am by Joe Koncelik
 The Takings Clause of Article V of the United States Constitution states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 7:47 am by Lyle Denniston
In February 2012, President Obama froze all of the Iranian government’s assets in the United States, including those of the central bank, making them potentially available to be seized. [read post]
3 Apr 2015, 7:44 am by Ronald Mann
” The final point ended up consuming a good bit of Hallward-Driemeier’s time: what to make of the decision of the major institutional actors that appeared in the case – the United States and the Bank of America – to file on the debtor’s side, supporting the right to appeal. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 1:45 pm by Daniel Robertson
July 18, 2011) On March 16, 2015, Judge George Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied RBS Securities Inc. [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 3:20 am by WIMS
 Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> AmerGen Energy Company, LLC v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 2:52 pm by Ben Rubin
Department of Agriculture (2013) 133 S.Ct. 2053, holding that California raisin handlers could maintain a takings claim as an affirmative defense to an enforcement action filed by the United States, and that the Hornes were not required to first file their claim in the Federal Court of Claims. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 3:56 pm by Carlo Van den Bosch
Sheppard Mullin’s intellectual property group prevailed before the United States Supreme Court in the trademark matter entitled Hana Financial v. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 8:42 am by Robert J. Morgan and Melissa Barnett
Hana Financial argued priority of rights based on their having used the Hana Financial trademark in the United States since 1995. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 1:35 pm
Prior to launch of Lecaent in the United Kingdom the First, Second and Third Defendants and each of them shall ensure that each pack of Lecaent supplied to a pharmacist is accompanied by removable notification that is easily legible stating:'This product is not authorised for the treatment of pain and must not be dispensed for such purposes.'5. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 4:14 am by Kevin LaCroix
As discussed here, in Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, v. [read post]
28 Dec 2014, 9:30 pm by RegBlog
Two Cheers for Recess Appointments Peter Shane (Ohio State University) | June 26 As losses go, NLRB v. [read post]