Search for: "United States v. Justice" Results 6901 - 6920 of 32,502
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Apr 2010, 5:00 am by Howard Wasserman
Lyrissa mentioned yesterday's SCOTUS decision in United States v. [read post]
4 Aug 2021, 7:54 am by Steve Lubet
The past six years have seen a distressing coarsening of political expression in the United States. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 11:43 am
/**/ The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be sitting at the University of Houston Law Center on November 3rd, 2009. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
United States: two copyright infringement suits that had turned on fair use in the lower courts, and that the Supreme Court had decided to review and had heard argument in. [read post]
28 Nov 2019, 9:17 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
The Corporations carry on business internationally and have affiliated offices throughout southern Ontario and the United States. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 2:08 pm by UChicagoLaw
  And we all know that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Schenk v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 12:24 pm by William Birdthistle
  The Court’s appetite for more of this dish appears to be notably sharp in Janus: in considering certiorari, the justices took the relatively unusual step of inviting the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States on whether to hear the case; then when the SG recommended denying certiorari, the justices took the highly unusual step of granting it anyway. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 3:54 am by Amy Howe
It has been a week since the Court announced that it would review United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2017, 6:20 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
See, for example, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v United States, 491 U.S. 617, 623 n. 3, 109 S Ct 2646, 105 L. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 12:59 pm by Amy Howe
Arguing for the United States as a “friend of the court” supporting the college, Assistant to the Solicitor General Sopan Joshi told the justices that even if they did consider them, the additional restrictions are analogous to the kind of power that elected bodies have long exercised in response to a member’s speech, without any suggestion that the elected bodies were violating the First Amendment. [read post]