Search for: "Small v. United States"
Results 761 - 780
of 7,737
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
I think it is somewhat telling that Jennifer’s caution leads her to try to ask if there are any real defenses for what I find one of the truly indefensible features of the Constitution—the allocation in the Senate of equal voting power by states. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 9:00 pm
While most small businesses are very small—the median small business is not only a sole proprietorship, but typically a side gig—most of those employed by small businesses work for those on the larger side of “small,” the sort of businesses that can easily be affected by the proposed higher rate. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 8:35 am
The United States Chamber of Commerce has consistently rated Delaware’s legal system as number one year after year. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 5:00 am
Data Protection v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 10:52 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 5:43 am
Wayfair, Inc., online retailers with no physical presence in South Dakota brought a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a South Dakota law that required out-of-state sellers of high-volume goods and services to collect and remit taxes made on in-state sales.[12] The Court ruled that the Dormant Commerce Clause did not invalidate such taxes merely because the retailer was physically located outside the state, overruling a 1992 case that had held the contrary.[13] The Court… [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 9:01 pm
These likely represent only a small number of tokens, even though they may represent a significant portion of the crypto market’s aggregate value. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 1:32 pm
” Cannon adds: “As a function of Plaintiff’s former position as President of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
Today, small rural states with less diverse populations benefit from state equality in the Senate. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 9:05 pm
That is one of the conclusions we reached after a year-long study for the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 6:56 am
If former President Trump commingled his personal effects with classified documents belonging to the United States, then that is not a reason to allow him to restrict use of the government's property. [read post]
5 Sep 2022, 6:32 am
The United States v Miller’s Organic Farm and Amos Miller’s next such hearing will be on September 26 At this one, Amos Miller of Bird-in-Hand, PA must have his $305,000 fine paid up or he risks going to jail. [read post]
5 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
Caroline Fredrickson Look at the name of this panel—it certainly seems to sum up the predicament the United States faces in this perilous moment. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 6:30 am
While the former course is undoubtedly preferable, past events in the United States and beyond make it crystal clear that both are possible. [read post]
2 Sep 2022, 3:31 pm
United States 22-118Issues: (1) Whether the jury clauses of Article III and the Sixth Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment bar a court from imposing a more severe criminal sentence on the basis of conduct that a jury necessarily rejected, given its verdicts of acquittal on other counts at the same trial; (2) whether the Supreme Court‘s decision in United States v. [read post]
1 Sep 2022, 10:29 pm
I was really shocked when I found out that the staff of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC) felt forced to bring a motion to compel Apple to provide answers to some of its questions. [read post]
1 Sep 2022, 10:50 am
United States, No. 21-1765C (Fed. [read post]
31 Aug 2022, 2:32 pm
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (Navajo–Hopi Settlement Act; Administrative Procedure Act) United States of America v. [read post]
31 Aug 2022, 4:00 am
AlumaSafway Inc. v Certain Employees of AlumaSafway and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1325, 2022 CanLII 76637 (AB LRB) 4. [read post]
30 Aug 2022, 3:16 am
"That reminded me of a passage from Qualcomm's reply brief in support of its Ninth Circuit appeal of the district court's FTC decision:"See United States v. [read post]
