Search for: "United States v. Warne"
Results 841 - 860
of 5,498
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Aug 2022, 4:47 pm
The United States v Paul Kruse trial in Austin, TX, has adjourned for the weekend. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 7:24 am
Facts: This case (United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 4:46 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 8:32 am
United States, 54 App. [read post]
28 Jan 2018, 11:02 am
The most important election law case before the United States Supreme Court this term is Gill v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 10:31 am
United States, 290 U.S. 13 (1933) (allowing a property owner to directly bring a Fifth Amendment claim for compensation upon the taking of the property, without pursuing, for example, the state-litigation requirement as contemplated in Williamson County)[13]; First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 10:47 am
In the United States, the legislative model has failed to ensure a fair criminal justice system. [read post]
15 May 2022, 4:26 pm
If Roe v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 7:05 am
Major A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas may have caused grave damage to protections long available to overseas government contractors and their employees under the Defense Base Act (“DBA”), 42 U.S.C. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 12:12 am
Caballes (2005) and United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 4:37 am
Following the discussion about the utility of the Supreme Court stating a rule as to whether, and for how long, a car stop can be extended beyond its lawful justification, all of which arose out of the Supreme Court’s grant of cert in Rodriguez v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 6:51 am
” United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 2:02 am
Solicitor General regarding the matter of Heien v. [read post]
15 Apr 2025, 5:50 am
Louis Brandeis famously observed that, in the United States’ system of government, the states are the laboratories of experimentation. [read post]
21 Jun 2005, 6:27 pm
United States, No. 04-5286 (June 20, 2005) holding that the 1 year limitations period under 2255(3) "begins to run on the date on which this Court 'initially recognized' the right asserted in an applicant's motion, not the date on which that right was made retroactive" Peter Godlberger, through a post at BOPWatch as well as his comment at Sentencing Law and Policy here, has alerted to the importance of Dodd to persons whose sentences became final before… [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 9:30 am
The case, Obergefell v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 9:00 pm
United States, No. 10-14235 (11th Cir. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 5:38 am
Walker's NOAA training and constituted a `public warning about danger to the health and safety of the United States populace. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 1:44 pm
Applying the United States Supreme Court’s recent class action decisions in Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
