Search for: "United States v. Radice"
Results 621 - 640
of 1,546
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Aug 2021, 3:08 am
TransUnion LLC v. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 10:51 am
, who calls for us to "declare war and harness all of the power that the United States can bring to bear, both diplomatic and military of course, to be able to take out ISIS. [read post]
18 May 2018, 8:02 am
” “If left uncorrected,” the solicitor general argues, the decision “will radically shift criminal jurisdiction in cases involving Indians in vast areas of eastern Oklahoma from the State to the federal government, and affect state taxing and other jurisdiction. [read post]
12 Oct 2022, 10:37 pm
While my preferred jurisdiction in which to follow patent infringement cases is the United States, I obviously benefit in different ways from the not only continuing but even increasing importance of German courts, especially the ones in Munich and Mannheim, as injunction hotspots in major technology patent disputes.Follow @FOSSpatents Share with other professionals via LinkedIn: Share| [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 7:00 am
Nixon v. [read post]
18 Mar 2017, 12:53 pm
Once again, race and federalism are connected.With respect to health care, Paul Starr provides a reminder of the sectional reality that existed prior to the ACA in his book Remedy and Reaction: “The United States developed out of radically different social systems in the South and the North, and while the South invoked states’ rights in defending slavery and later Jim Crow, federal intervention was crucial in efforts to achieve equality from the… [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 7:12 am
Today, as the 2017 Verso Radical Diary reminds me, is the date of the signing of Charter 77. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 7:16 am
In the United States, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 10:57 am
For decades, underground networks around the world — from El Salvador to Poland to Mexico to right here in the United States — have been and are assisting pregnant people obtain the abortion care that they need. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 4:36 pm
” To “defraud the United States” has a specific meaning under U.S. case law: According to Hammerschmidt v. [read post]
3 May 2020, 6:30 am
That would be fitting, because if this fine book is ultimately about one thing, it surely would be debate itself—the deep and fundamental debate that roiled the early United States and transformed it into a new kind of constitutional republic. [read post]
2 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
And here I return to Sandy, whose broader research agenda embraces the potential of and opportunities for radical change within a negotiated reform process. [read post]
3 May 2022, 7:33 am
It then also notes that the plaintiffs and the United States as amicus had connected the abortion right to the right of consenting adults to engage in same-sex sexual conduct (recognized in Lawrence v. [read post]
10 May 2012, 6:51 am
Bush’s promise of robust review of the legality of the Guantanamo detainees’ detention has been effectively negated by decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, beginning with Al-Adahi v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 8:02 am
Just a week ago Judge Kozinski dissented from the denial of a petition for rehearing en banc in United States of America v. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 1:08 pm
A little more than six years ago, in United States v. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 10:53 am
” When all major museums take the side of the borrowing Prince, the game is over, notwithstanding $600 per hour attorneys battling in the Champions League of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 5:47 pm
To the more contemporary antitrust matter: Conclusions of Law and Order: United States of America v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 11:14 am
When the United States declared independence, Black wrote, Parliament’s “transcendant [sic] powers” were transferred to the states, who now enjoyed “supreme and unlimited” authority. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 7:07 am
Gonzales , 435 F.3d 172 (2d Cir 2006) , and held that the one-year period in which a timely application for asylum may be made runs from the applicant’s literal “last arrival” even when that last arrival followed a relatively brief trip outside the United States pursuant to advance parole granted by immigration authorities (which the Second Circuit had held would not restart the one-year clock). [read post]
