Search for: "United States v. Close" Results 8301 - 8320 of 14,200
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2011, 12:30 pm by Susan Brenner
This statement does not allege anything close to a contemporaneous interception. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 1:27 pm by Ilya Somin
They compared it to Clinton administration Solicitor General Drew Days’ famous mistake in United States v. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 5:42 am by John Elwood
United States, 14-29, a case seeking to clarify several standards regarding insider trading. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 2:41 pm by vforberger
Other states Mis-classification of gig workers has been a major issue in numerous states. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 8:27 am
Nyhan (Florence) - Generating Indigenous Peoples: The Global Knowledge Production of International Law Concepts and Categories in Context and the Significance of the Transnational Commentator – Fay Pazartzis (Athens)   18:00 Closing Session   [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 7:37 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Personal Keepsakes, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2012, 8:55 am by admin
  The article also dismissed this claim as overly “ambitious” for a company that “trades at only eight cents per share on the lowly ‘pink sheets’ in the United States”. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 9:29 am by Dean Gonsowski
On appeal, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Major provided a quick summary for those who haven’t been following the trials and tribulations closely. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 9:28 pm by Lyle Denniston
   After saying that Congress has taxing power, the provision does say — without elaboration – that Congress also has the power “to provide for….the general welfare of the United States.” Congress customarily does not just hand out money to the states without strings attached. [read post]
5 Jun 2010, 8:27 am by Lisa McElroy
United States, the Justices took a look at the national sex offender registry, established by Congress in 2006. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 5:05 am by SHG
The United States Supreme Court stuck defendants in the middle of a mine field, and the California Supreme Court decided that the defendant deserved to be destroyed even if he never actually stepped on a mine. [read post]