Search for: "Short v. United States" Results 8721 - 8740 of 10,137
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Feb 2008, 7:40 am
Attempts to Regulate Payday Lenders Currently, garnishment of social security benefits is illegal and all active-duty military families are protected by the Military Lending Act signed into law on October 2006 - capping interest rates at 36% on all small loans, including payday loans, for all military families.[43] Small loans are governed by state law, and many states have implemented restrictions on payday lenders.[44] For example, many state have placed restrictions… [read post]
13 Feb 2020, 2:32 pm by Deepak Gupta
United States (1935), the Supreme Court held that President Franklin Roosevelt couldn’t lawfully remove a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission for solely political reasons. [read post]
7 May 2018, 1:51 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Sometimes we only have IP address; sometimes we negotiate to narrow requests to avoid revealing unnecessary info.Pablo Peláez, Europol Representative to the United States: Cybercrime unit is interested in hate speech & propaganda. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
  Item 1502(a) (“Strategy”) states: “In describing these material risks, a registrant must describe whether such risks are reasonably likely to manifest in the short-term (i.e., the next 12 months) and separately in the long-term (i.e., beyond the next 12 months). [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 9:35 am by Ronald Collins
In short, Chief Justice Roberts aims at making good on President Richard M. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 7:30 am by Joy Waltemath
District Court for the District of Columbia applied the Lone Steer standard to an OFCCP compliance evaluation dispute in its November 2011 decision in United Space Alliance, LLC v. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 4:49 am
There should however be a little notice somewhere to the effect that its contents are essentially United States-derived and United States-oriented. [read post]
16 May 2015, 3:17 pm by Kevin
Under this charge, the question boils down to this: do you think that this evidence shows that these people "willfully injured national-defense premises" with the "intent to injure, interfere with, or obstruct the national defense of the United States"? [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by Narintohn Luangrath
United States dissent, Congress could delegate fact-finding to the Executive Branch, but not “policy judgments. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
Banning the use of confidential sources denies a core principle reflected in media ethics codes from around the world and flies in the face of the First Amendment to the United States constitution and rights to free speech. [read post]