Search for: "United States v. Palmer"
Results 61 - 80
of 309
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2009, 12:24 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Aug 2019, 3:03 pm
" United States v. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 4:48 am
Compare United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 6:33 pm
Palmer & Larry K. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 6:02 pm
Palmer – Franck’s Lab Inc., a pharmacy that compounds veterinary drugs and whose bulk animal drug compounding activities were vindicated by a Florida federal district court last year, recently filed its Brief for the Appellees in the matter of United States v. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 5:06 am
United States v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 1:14 pm
Palmer, and Commonwealth v. [read post]
16 Sep 2023, 8:16 am
August 25, 2023 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in FTC v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 10:02 am
The facts concern the largest uranium deposit in the United States, located in south-central Virginia. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 4:21 pm
V. [read post]
22 Jun 2024, 10:01 pm
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Paul Stevens There were two strong dissents in the case. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 7:24 am
Four years ago, in Davis v. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 1:04 pm
A few years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that DUI sobriety checkpoints were constitutionally valid. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
On May 15, 2006, the United States Supreme Court decided the Sereboff v. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 6:03 am
Though current disclosure laws may not be necessarily adequate, Liptak argues that Congress and state legislators are to blame for the shortcoming: “You can’t blame Citizens United for everything. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 4:21 pm
V. [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 9:44 am
The brief was filed in State v. [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 9:45 am
” United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 3:42 pm
United States, 459 F.2d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 1972) (same); Black v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 10:39 am
Prior to taking title, 1080 advised the city that it believed the inclusionary condition to be invalid as a result of the decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P v. [read post]
