Search for: "Davis v. United States" Results 681 - 700 of 3,028
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Apr 2019, 4:04 am by Edith Roberts
United States, which asks when a defendant must have formed the intent required to commit burglary for purposes of a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 3:54 am by Edith Roberts
United States, in which the court will consider whether, to convict defendant in U.S. illegally for violating a federal gun-possession law, prosecutors must show that defendant knew he was in the country illegally. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 2:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
United States: The case centers on when an unlawful trespass turns into a burglary. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 4:00 am by Edith Roberts
The first is Food Marketing Institute v. [read post]
21 Apr 2019, 9:00 am by Andrew Hamm
United States and Taggart v. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 3:44 am by Edith Roberts
” Leah Litman has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s oral argument in United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 11:18 am by Andrew Hamm
The transcript of oral argument in United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 3:49 am by Edith Roberts
First up is United States v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 11:30 pm by Dáire McCormack-George
I include those who are unemployed because, in most cases, unemployed people are now commonly assumed to be (paid) ‘job-seekers’ and may have certain social welfare entitlements which provide them with the most basic means for survival.[2] These distinctions may seem sharp and clear-cut as stated here. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 6:24 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
They do know it yet, but some day, perhaps later this year, they will all convene at the United States Courthouse in lower Manhattan go decide whether Blair Davis-Garett was retaliated against by Urban Outfitters for complaining about age discrimination.The case is Davis-Garret v. [read post]
14 Apr 2019, 9:00 am by Andrew Hamm
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in United States v. [read post]