Search for: "United States v. Washington" Results 6421 - 6440 of 10,168
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2012, 5:14 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) A bit of digging into United States v. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 5:11 am
For the very sensible reasons explained by the Supreme Court of the United States in Powell v. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 3:30 am
Although not identified as an issue in the Richfield Springs case, as the Appellate Division, Second Department noted in Matter of Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn. (268 AD2d 523 [2000], appeal dismissed 95 NY2d 790 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 761 [2000]), a statute, decisional law or public policy may preclude referring a Taylor Law contract dispute to arbitration. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 7:48 am by Raffaela Wakeman
That ruling then precipitated a dramatic political battle full of overblown claims of threats to America and eventually resulted in the passage of a measure expanding the NSA’s ability to intercept communications inside the United States. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 6:57 am by Conor McEvily
United States, a case involving the interpretation of the Hyde Amendment, which allows courts to award attorney’s fees to a criminal defendant when they find that the government’s position was “vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 9:26 am by Florian Mueller
It is at issue between Motorola and Microsoft in the Western District of Washington, where the parties' infringement claims are currently stayed. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 1:46 pm by Jeffrey May
” Defendants would be permitted to petition the United States for permission to continue to participate in the JOE. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 7:10 am by Walter James
  In July 2011, according to the government, the United States Coast Guard conducted a Port State Controlexamination on the Fishing Vessel (F/V) San Nikunau, when the vessel entered port in Pago Pago, American Samoa. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 1:27 am by Kevin LaCroix
” She added that “while defendants’ contention that an investor could not purchase an RDS in the United States without a corresponding overseas transaction may be true, it does not change the fact that a purchase in the United State still took place. [read post]