Search for: "United States v. Herring" Results 7881 - 7900 of 23,119
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Sep 2017, 12:52 pm
During that same period, her parents separated, her father left her life, and her mother fell into a deep depression, leaving T.H.'s older sister to raise her. [read post]
26 Sep 2017, 1:17 pm by Jacob Sapochnick
 The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this proclamation shall NOT apply to: (i)    any lawful permanent resident of the United States; (ii)   any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the United States on or after the applicable effective date under section 7 of this proclamation—September 24, 2017; (iii)  any foreign national who has a document other than a visa — such as a transportation letter, an… [read post]
26 Sep 2017, 3:07 am by Lyle Denniston
   They lost in the Supreme Court in a 5-to-4 decision in 1973 (Gilligan v. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 3:32 pm by Wolfgang Demino
WEINSTEIN, PINSON & RILEY, P.S., EVAN MOSCOV, and EGS FINANCIAL CARE, INC., formerly known as NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants.No. 14 C 739.United States District Court, N.D. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 5:17 am by Andrew King
United States, holding that the use of a “Stingray” cellsite simulator required a warrant under the Fourth Amendment, Chris Seaton and Andrew King were challenged to debate whether the Third-Party Doctrine or the Supreme Court’s Riley v. [read post]
24 Sep 2017, 5:22 pm by Matthew Kahn
 This was the first such review of its kind in United States history. [read post]
23 Sep 2017, 6:58 am by Jason Shinn
But the Supreme Court later in Sutton v United Air Lines, Inc, decided that with corrective measures (in Sutton the issue were corrective lenses) to mitigate the plaintiff’s impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity and therefore they were not disabled. [read post]
23 Sep 2017, 6:58 am by Jason Shinn
But the Supreme Court later in Sutton v United Air Lines, Inc, decided that with corrective measures (in Sutton the issue were corrective lenses) to mitigate the plaintiff’s impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity and therefore they were not disabled. [read post]