Search for: "Short v. United States"
Results 6261 - 6280
of 10,140
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jun 2013, 12:19 pm
See, e.g., McCulloch v. [read post]
30 Jun 2013, 12:17 am
In general, though, legal Indianness requires indigenous ancestry (descent from a group indigenous to what is now the United States) and some kind of political recognition. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 10:39 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 10:09 am
Gambling machines STATE OF TEXAS v. $1,760.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, 37 "8" LINER MACHINES, No. 12-0718 Per Curiam The Court agreed with the State that certain “eight-liner” machines qualified as gambling equipment for purposes of civil forfeiture. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 8:08 am
Briefly: At PrawfsBlawg, Will Baude covers United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 8:26 am
Ltd v Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker, a reference from Højesteret (Denmark), has been considered, pondered over and duly ruled upon by the CJEU in two days short of a year. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:34 pm
White-Hat Bias & Black-Hat Ethics I recently came across a disturbing article in the Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal, supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 11:24 am
I focus here only on the Court’s invalidation of Section 3 of DOMA in United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:51 am
By Bradley Graveline and Jennifer Driscoll-Chippendale On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:45 am
From the case Commil v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 11:59 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a similar decision in NLRB v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 10:08 am
By Bradley Graveline and Jennifer Driscoll-Chippendale On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 6:08 am
On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 6:38 am
United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:58 am
Redmond v. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:02 am
If you’re short on time, start with these posts. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 6:40 am
United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 6:43 pm
Slip at 4, citing United States v. [read post]
