Search for: "United States v. Nation" Results 61 - 80 of 25,476
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2013, 10:31 am by Kate Fort
CONCLUSION Plaintiff has demonstrated that, during the period from February 22, 1974, to September 30, 1992, defendant breached its fiduciary duties to the Nation by mismanaging the Nation’s trust assets and other funds. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 11:47 am by DMLP Staff
§ 875(c); conspiracy to make publically available restricted personal information of an employee of the United States under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 4:00 am by Michael Woods and Gordon LaFortune
In 1995, the United States launched the first NAFTA trade challenge.[9] It was the first and only NAFTA Chapter 20 Canada-U.S. dispute as the agreement’s state-to-state provisions fell into disuse. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 1:25 pm by WIMS
Appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 5:30 pm by Anna Christensen
The United States Sentencing Commission filed an amicus brief in support of the United States. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 3:29 pm by Bernadette Meyler
Instead, Thomas asserted, “at the time of the founding, it was well settled that States were immune under both the common law and the law of nations,” and that the states comprising the United States “retained these aspects of sovereignty” (587 U.S. ____, 9 [2019]). [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 12:59 pm by Schachtman
My friend Chris Guzelian thinks that I have jumped the shark in joining with Professors Makuch and Lash in filing an amicus brief in United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 12:13 pm by Zarine Kharazian
On December 13, 2017, the European Commission filed an amicus brief in the United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 12:13 pm by Zarine Kharazian
On December 13, 2017, the European Commission filed an amicus brief in the United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 2:21 am
R (A) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWCA Civ 225; [2009] WLR (D) 113 “A failed asylum seeker was not ‘ordinarily resident’ within the United Kingdom for the purposes of entitlement to treatment as of right by the National Health Service free of charge. [read post]