Search for: "United States v. California"
Results 7561 - 7580
of 13,840
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2014, 7:51 pm
United States) we see no ground for reaching a different conclusion here. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 5:03 pm
For more information, see EPIC: United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 2:48 pm
California and U.S. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 11:00 am
United States] we see no ground for reaching a different conclusion here. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 9:53 am
For instance, back in 1985, Robert Levinson complained of a contract with the Eckerd Foundation for the management of the Okeechobee School for Boys in which “[v]irtually every” contract item concerned input activities and pertained to administrative/operational functions. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 8:30 am
The ruling in United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 6:24 am
A case kicking around back them was United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 5:53 am
United States, in which the Court – again divided six to three – held that a criminal defendant whose assets have been frozen before his trial does not have a right to a hearing to challenge the probable cause for his indictment, even if he needs the money to hire a lawyer to defend him against the charges. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 4:22 pm
United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (ethics restriction on competitive bidding); Goldfarb v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 4:16 pm
By Matthew Hinks The well-known "nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests from the United States Supreme Court's opinions in Nollan v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 11:00 am
Lefstin, University of California Hastings College of the Law, has posted Inventive Application: A History. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 9:33 am
Doe and Doe v. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 5:12 am
Brown v. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 6:39 am
The case resolved by this settlement, United States ex rel. [read post]
22 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
United States, by Judith V. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 12:41 pm
Co., a 1957 opinion from the United States Supreme Court that seems pretty on point. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:26 am
District Judge Vaughn Walker striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, noting that although the Supreme Court later “chose to speak on gay marriage through a narrower case, ruling only that the federal government must recognize marriages solemnized under state law,” since then the lower courts “have been reading the [United States v.] [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 8:13 am
Lilly v. [read post]
