Search for: "Davis v. United States Army" Results 61 - 80 of 97
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2013, 9:26 am by Rahul Bhagnari, ACLU
At the ceremony were family members of Parks, a military Color Guard, and the United States Army Chorus, which gave a stirring rendition of the Negro National Anthem "Lift Every Voice and Sing." [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 9:26 am by Rahul Bhagnari, ACLU
At the ceremony were family members of Parks, a military Color Guard, and the United States Army Chorus, which gave a stirring rendition of the Negro National Anthem “Lift Every Voice and Sing. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 4:44 am by Benjamin Wittes
  Relatively soon after Bivens, the Court also allowed Bivens claims under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (Davis v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:53 am by INFORRM
  The former army chief and four other top serving Army officers were granted bail by the Magistrate. [read post]
27 May 2012, 5:42 pm by INFORRM
On the Constitution Unit Blog, Brian Walker assesses the dropped Contempt proceedings against former Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am by Ronald Collins
Taft, Anti-Semitism in the United States (1920) Benjamin N. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 3:41 am by Dan Hargrove
  In October 2010, Boston Scientific's subsidiary reached a settlement with the US Attorney in which the company agreed to pay the United States $600,000. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 7:25 am by Kevin Russell
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 543 F.3d 586, 594 (9th Cir. 2008)). [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 2:03 pm by Dwight Sullivan
Maloney, Litigating Article 32 Errors After United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 10:36 am by Jasmine Joseph
The other amendments of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights inspire public adoration and volumes of legal research. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 6:38 am by Charon QC
My ex-wife used to roll her eyes when I said, as one does, non haec in foedera veni [Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v. [read post]