Search for: "United States v. Burden" Results 8661 - 8680 of 9,845
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2007, 3:14 pm
If they did, the Chevron framework in administrative law would be hard to justify-at least if Chevron is to be justified, as it is in United States v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 1:56 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Harbor Freight sells tools and related products at over 400 retail stores throughout the United States. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 6:14 am by abiinniss
The obvious advantage is that there is less burden on the courts to deal with petty matters which often permeate the Magistrates courts and which could be dealt with by mediation. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 5:00 am by Cassie Preston
  The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida awarded the stewards compensatory wages under 46 U.S.C. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 1:22 pm by Bona Law PC
Here the District Court–– citing the well-known AT&T acquisition of TimeWarner in 2018 (See United States v. [read post]
9 Jan 2021, 3:40 pm by Robert Liles
  Case Example Where the Government Sought to Pierce the Corporate Veil of a Home Health Agency: In United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 7:00 am by Jacob Sapochnick
For instance, the Coronavirus proclamations prevent the entry and visa issuance of those who were physically present in the Schengen countries, United Kingdom, Ireland, China, Iran, and Brazil within the 14- day period prior to attempted entry to the United States. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 12:26 am by David Kopel
Supreme Court gets ready to hear New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. [read post]
13 Dec 2013, 2:36 am by Marty Lederman
”  Both sets of plaintiffs allege that, in their view, human life begins at the point where an egg and sperm unite, even before the embryo is implanted in the uterine wall, and that it is immoral to take steps to “terminate” such human life, even by preventing the embryo’s implantation. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 12:41 pm by Ilya Somin
United States (2012), the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration’s dubious argument that temporary flooding of property by the government can never qualify as a taking. [read post]