Search for: "Parcell v. United States"
Results 741 - 760
of 925
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Aug 2010, 2:38 pm
In Spreadbury v. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 1:43 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:28 am
United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)). [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 4:37 pm
Since the statute of limitations is intended to give defendants "the protections of predictability and promptness" (quoting United States v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:37 pm
The $4 million civil penalty will be divided among the United States, Alabama and Iowa. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 9:16 am
" Franco v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:30 pm
Gaitis With the issuance of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Rent-a-Center, West, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 1:59 am
United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 09-15363 (9th Cir. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 10:59 am
United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 09-15363 (9th Cir. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 1:45 am
Beutz v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 1:45 am
Beutz v. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 5:25 pm
The argument was mentioned in Fayed v United Kingdom ((1994) 18 EHRR 393) and it was accepted in Rotaru v Romania ((2000) 8 BHRC 449 [44]). [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 4:38 pm
United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960). [read post]
27 May 2010, 8:48 am
., v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 6:53 am
“The six parcels of land Florida is buying from United States Sugar include citrus groves, whose sandy soils are less than ideal for Everglades restoration. [read post]
26 May 2010, 10:16 pm
At the time the Convention was crafted, it could not have been envisaged that Article 3 (and Article 8, in its train) would ultimately entail an obligation on signatory states to protect individuals from actions taken by, or within the territory of, non signatory states – the so called “extra-territorial effect” created by various rulings of the Strasbourg Court, most notably Chahal v United Kingdom. [read post]
24 May 2010, 4:54 pm
This bill is supported by the likes of the United Parcel Service ("UPS"), who has argued that the bill would allow unionized transportation companies to negotiate flexible terms for the timing of meal periods because current law significantly restricts the freedom of drivers to decide for themselves when they can take their meal periods. [read post]
5 May 2010, 8:43 am
Capital Development, LLC, Case No. 1:09-cv-00632-BEL in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 3:07 pm
” Norgart v. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 9:12 am
Finally, at Slate, Rick Hasen comments on last week’s decision in United States v. [read post]
