Search for: "United States v. Harris"
Results 621 - 640
of 2,750
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2014, 6:22 am
In 2010, a controversial case stemming from Illinois litigation led to the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 12:22 pm
Supreme Court held in United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 5:16 am
United States and Fong Yue Ting v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 8:26 am
United States. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 9:41 am
Case scheduled Dec 04, 2013 10:00 a.m. at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Howard T. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 4:50 am
[Graham] went to a Harris–Teeter at about 6:30 a.m. to buy milk, and returned home. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 7:05 am
Among the issues that the Court refused to hear were these: ** A plea to consider overruling a 2002 decision, Harris v. [read post]
1 Apr 2018, 12:24 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 1:00 pm
A unit of the Special Collections Department of the University of Washington Libraries, the Labor Archives is a collaborative project of the Harry Bridges Center for Labor Studies and the University of Washington Libraries. [read post]
5 May 2014, 5:10 am
Two days later, [he] flew back to the United States. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 12:47 pm
Kiobel v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 9:09 am
Harris (1971) and also that the President was not entitled to injunctive relief under a claim of presidential immunity from New York state’s criminal process. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 6:44 am
See Barhoumi v. [read post]
9 Jun 2019, 2:59 pm
Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 581, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979) (quoting United States v. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 7:30 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 8:55 am
United States. [read post]
9 Aug 2007, 2:34 pm
Quarto v. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 3:15 pm
United States). [read post]
4 Feb 2007, 10:51 pm
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 54 (1971) . . . [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 8:22 pm
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for reconsideration of the aforementioned issue in light of United States v. [read post]
