Search for: "United States v. Peoples" Results 6601 - 6620 of 22,868
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2019, 6:01 am by Andrew Patterson
The people affected by Attorney General Barr’s decision entered the United States between ports of entry and, while being processed for expedited removal, expressed a fear of persecution in their home country that was found credible by the U.S. [read post]
28 May 2019, 2:08 pm by Mark Walsh
Your commission as Attorney General of the United States will be noted in the records of the court. [read post]
27 May 2019, 6:28 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
The report by QuoteWizard found Boston has the second highest number of drivers with drunk driving convictions of any city in the United States. [read post]
25 May 2019, 10:01 am by Eugene Volokh
This comment continues a pattern of behavior that led to our first public reprimand of Judge Kwan, following his in-court reference to sexual conduct and a former president of the United States. [read post]
25 May 2019, 8:55 am by Shawn R. Dominy
Wisconsin pending in the United States Supreme Court., One noteworthy presentation came from a former prosecutor. [read post]
24 May 2019, 2:03 pm by Kent Scheidegger
Prop. 57 was dishonestly sold to the people as a measure for "nonviolent offenders," but it includes people with violent records whose present offense of conviction is "nonviolent. [read post]
24 May 2019, 8:15 am
  But the AI principles continue to fail to treat AI as regulation, especially when undertaken by states, or through private entities seeking to comply with state regulatory mandates. [read post]
24 May 2019, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
In the United States, the law is currently in flux and has focused mostly around liability for copyrights. [read post]
23 May 2019, 5:46 pm by Eugene Volokh
" As of November 2009, WikiLeaks's "Most Wanted Leaks" for the United States included the following: a. [read post]
23 May 2019, 6:34 am by UKSC Blog
The onus has shifted to the state to justify an interference with a right. [read post]