Search for: "Petite v. United States"
Results 6741 - 6760
of 13,104
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jun 2014, 9:03 am
In Republic of Argentina v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 8:45 am
United States. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 8:28 am
United States [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the question presented is: "Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 8:21 am
But it could also be that Google files a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 5:01 am
A recent case, Baur v. [read post]
14 Jun 2014, 7:00 am
United States and explored the ruling’s impact on foreign affairs exceptionalism, Executive Branch authority, and foreign relations law. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 12:15 pm
This was both unfortunate, and odd, since the United States Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit had previously held just the opposite.. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 10:30 am
Nonetheless, the court concluded that the district court did not commit a reversible error where the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule under United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 7:35 am
A recently published decision, Mendoza v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 5:54 pm
See United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 4:19 pm
In its petition for certiorari, the utility contended that, once a state PUC has agree [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 9:05 am
Orin Kerr writes in the Volokh Conspiracy about the Eleventh Circuit’s decision yesterday in United States v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:43 am
United States and Yates v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:33 am
” The Court also found persuasive the government’s brief filed in relation to the petition for a writ of certiorari in US ex rel Nathan v Takeda Pharm N Am which had argued that the claim requirement was both “unsupported by Rule 9(b) and undermines the FCA’s effectiveness as a tool to combat fraud against the United States. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 4:32 pm
The key reasoning of the new decision, United States v. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division concurred with the Supreme Court’s ruling noting that “The giving of false statements in the course of an official investigation has been upheld as a ground for dismissal from municipal employment," citing Duncan v Kelly, 43 AD3d 297, affirmed 9 NY3d 1024.As the United States Supreme Court held in Bryson v. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 4:00 am
Harris and KBR v. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 5:17 pm
He was the defendant in Dorsey v. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 3:42 pm
So states the Georgia Court of Appeals McLaurin v. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 9:00 am
United States v. [read post]
