Search for: "Shields v. United States"
Results 841 - 860
of 2,215
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2015, 4:22 am
Or, more accurately, yes, we could, but not after People v. [read post]
9 Nov 2021, 9:01 pm
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n (NYSR&P) v. [read post]
9 Nov 2021, 9:01 pm
Last week the Supreme Court heard oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n (NYSR&P) v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 10:43 am
” See SEC v. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 3:50 am
At The National Law Review, Evan Seeman looks at the court’s order late last week in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 4:30 am
Alternatively, and more sensibly, the Court may choose to revisit its previous dog sniff cases, United States v. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
In Matter of A.L. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 6:59 pm
The idea was proposed to Span, which agreed on the understanding that the $300,000 would be paid back, the preferred units would be converted to common units, and Span would end up with a 10% ownership interest in Triumph. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 1:51 pm
The Colorado state trial court held that the President is not an "Officer of the United States. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 3:52 am
He served as President of the National Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, an association of public gaming executives in the United States and Canada, and had been featured on the cover of Public Gaming International, a trade magazine.Problems began in 1988, when the state awarded a contract to install a statewide computer system for the sale of lottery tickets to General Instrument Corporation (GIC). [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 5:30 pm
The key law relied upon in the case, the Alien Tort Statute, requires, after a 2013 Supreme Court decision called Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, that plaintiffs show that the matter “touch and concern” the United States in order for the case to proceed here. [read post]
29 May 2020, 7:52 am
It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider. [read post]
29 May 2020, 7:52 am
It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 11:55 am
Ct. 2183, 2192 (2020); United States v. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 4:00 am
In addition, in Filarsky v. [read post]
11 Jun 2011, 6:27 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 5:15 pm
I guess I’ve been lucky because I have never had to do a trial where the opposing party acted in person, “pro se”, as they call it in the United States. [read post]
7 Apr 2019, 9:44 pm
I guess I’ve been lucky because I have never had to do a trial or hearing where the opposing party acted in person, “pro se”, as they call it in the United States. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 6:41 pm
United States, 713 F.2d 728, 730 (Fed. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 1:07 pm
United States, 1990 WL 124496, at *3 (9th Cir. [read post]
