Search for: "United States v. Handler" Results 61 - 80 of 210
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Nov 2012, 5:44 am by Susan Brenner
Andas Wikipedia notes, habeas corpus came to the United States from England. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 1:36 pm by Kenneth J. Vanko
--Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of VirginiaOpinion Date: 3/13/12Cite: Western Industries-North, LLP v. [read post]
5 Dec 2015, 5:43 pm by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
The United States Supreme Court’s decision is Florida v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 12:00 pm by Jon Robinson
  Instead, the court determined that it must apply the two-prong test announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Chandris, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 6:16 am by SHG
At The Watch, Radley Balko dissects the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
31 Dec 2012, 3:08 pm by John Hochfelder
The Baggage Tractor in this Case   A lawsuit was commenced in 2001 in the United States District Court in Brooklyn (usually such a case would be brought in state court but because the parties were citizens of different states, so-called diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S. [read post]
13 May 2014, 5:04 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Handler, M.D., P.C. v DiNapoli, 2014 NY Slip Op 03191, Court of AppealsAmong the patients treated by a physician and a medical group [Providers] were individuals insured by the Empire Plan, New York State's primary health benefit plan. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 1:07 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
Consider, for example, the United States Customs Service regime: The Customs Service puts its dog and handler teams through a rigorous twelve-week training course, where only half of the canines complete the training. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 8:14 pm by Rick Hills
United States between the Articles of Confederation (under which states could be commandeered to raise troops for Congress) and the the U.S. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 2:52 pm by Ben Rubin
Department of Agriculture (2013) 133 S.Ct. 2053, holding that California raisin handlers could maintain a takings claim as an affirmative defense to an enforcement action filed by the United States, and that the Hornes were not required to first file their claim in the Federal Court of Claims. [read post]