Search for: "Charles v. United States Government"
Results 741 - 760
of 1,332
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2014, 8:12 am
The resolution declared that the assumption of state debts by the federal government was “repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, as it goes to the exercise of a power not expressly granted to the general government” (emphasis added). [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 3:32 pm
Justice Charles E. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm
United States. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 7:25 am
” At Letters Blogatory, Charles Kotuby compares the Court’s recent decisions in Lozano v. [read post]
1 Mar 2014, 7:00 am
He specifically addressed our ability to address the two major strategic threats facing the United States: a rising China and weak, malevolent states. [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, 8:13 am
SORNA `requires those convicted of certain sex crimes to provide state governments with (and to update) information, such as names and current addresses, for inclusion on state and federal sex offender registries. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 8:58 am
A question raised, but not answered — since the defendant didn’t argue it — in Judge Neil Gorsuch’s characteristically scholarly opinion in United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 12:12 pm
The federal government and state government are independent sovereigns, so if both courts have jurisdiction, both can proceed to judgment. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 2:14 pm
To be clear: Charles V (aka Carlos V) was the monarch in power over the realm comprising both of the lands that today are Belgium and Mexico. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 8:35 pm
Interestingly, given the amount of attention arbitration has gotten in recent years in state supreme courts around the country implementing the United States Supreme Court’s AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
In Jensen v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:47 am
§ 875(c); conspiracy to make publically available restricted personal information of an employee of the United States under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:47 am
§ 875(c); conspiracy to make publically available restricted personal information of an employee of the United States under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:47 am
Attorney)Source of Law: United StatesVerdict or Settlement Amount: N/ALegal Claims: Computer Fraud and Abuse ActFraudTheftOtherCourt Name: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas: Dallas DivisionLegal Counsel: Douglas A Morris (Federal Public Defender - Dallas); Ahmed Ghappour (University of Texas Law School), Charles D. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 12:34 am
But the program could very well violate antitrust and competition laws in the United States, the European Commission, or other jurisdictions. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 4:47 pm
So holds Autor v. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 1:10 pm
At the end of the oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 5:29 pm
Some even considered Barron v. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 4:28 pm
v=j0pl_FXt0eMWilliam F. [read post]
