Search for: "State Bank v. United States" Results 7181 - 7200 of 7,413
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Aug 2007, 6:16 pm
On June 22, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit confirmed in Hiwot Nemariam et al. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 6:05 am
The brief addressing this question, a concept known as scheme liability, was filed in support of the investors in the Stoneridge case.The brief noted that the Solicitor General rejected the SEC's specific recommendation that the United States file an amicus brief in support of investors and urge the Court to follow the Commission's long-standing interpretation of the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue. [read post]
30 Jul 2007, 5:26 am
United States Bank National Association, No. 06-36085 (March 2, 2007)Another burden of proof case from the Ninth Circuit. [read post]
28 Jul 2007, 9:32 am
Defendant also argues that his 360-month sentence of incarceration is unreasonable in light of United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2007, 11:18 am
" in the same paragraph in Westlaw produced 16 hits just in the United States Supreme Court - as recent as Watters v. [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 8:15 am
United States of America (The Bahamas) [2007] UKPC 52 (23 July 2007) Source: www.bailii.org [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 1:24 am
Kaplan on Monday prevented attorneys Robert Fink and Caroline Rule from withdrawing as defense counsel to former KPMG partner Richard Smith in United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2007, 7:19 am
United States v. $55,000.00 in United States Currency from Safe Deposit Box 74 at Ridgedale State Bank, 2007 U.S. [read post]
20 Jul 2007, 1:27 am
DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Criminal Practice 13 KPMG Defendants Dismissed; 'Thompson' Memo Prevented Defense, Use of Attorneys of Choice United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2007, 1:17 am
Fired after a scandal which banned Citigroup from the Japanese private banking market, Jones hired Arkin to pursue a suit against Citigroup. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 6:44 am
Where, as here "[an application] claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result," KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (citing United States v. [read post]