Search for: "Petition of United States"
Results 8841 - 8860
of 23,983
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jun 2017, 4:25 am
At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger notes that the “theme out of the United States Supreme Court [yesterday was] materiality. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 9:30 pm
The attorneys general argued that the “petition represents nothing more than the industry’s effort to shield itself from state law enforcement. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 6:44 pm
After our client came to the United States, he has remained in the United States beyond the expiration of his authorized stay period. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 1:50 pm
To the surprise of many, the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Oil States vs. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 9:16 am
The NLRB Left To Go It Alone When the United States filed its brief with the Supreme Court last week changing positions, it did so as a “friend of the court. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 4:00 am
"The United States Supreme Court has applied a two-part test to determine whether there was a right of access under the First Amendment [see Press-Enterprise Co. v Superior Ct. of Cal., County of Riverside, 478 US 1, 8-10], and the [New York State] Court of Appeals has used that test to determine whether there is a right of access to a professional disciplinary hearing;4. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 12:11 am
CASE: J-1 Waiver (No Objection Statement) NATIONALITY: Philippines LOCATION: Little Rock, AR Our client came to the United States as an H-1B visa holder to teach in the U.S. in 2007. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 12:46 pm
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision, holding that the so-called “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act is an impermissible restriction on free speech under the First Amendment. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 12:46 pm
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision, holding that the so-called “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act is an impermissible restriction on free speech under the First Amendment. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 10:46 am
Currently, the United States Supreme Court is considering the issue in the consolidated cases of National Labor Relations Board v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 10:46 am
Currently, the United States Supreme Court is considering the issue in the consolidated cases of National Labor Relations Board v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:44 am
Without a ban in place, the United States has continued to import more than 375,000 metric tons of asbestos to be used in commercial products, putting American citizens at risk for exposure. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:19 am
In response, Oil States Energy filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 9:19 am
In response, Oil States Energy filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 5:34 am
United States On June 5, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition to hear a major Fourth Amendment case decided by the Sixth Circuit, Carpenter v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 4:12 am
But on Friday (the deadline under the court’s rules to do so), the United States filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the employers. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 3:00 am
The Eleventh Circuit thus ruled that an individual who is a dual citizen of the United States and another nation is only a citizen of the United States for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction under § 1332(a). [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 2:15 am
We demonstrated the intrinsic merit of our client’s research in the United States, the national scope of his research, and asserted that our client would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. [read post]
18 Jun 2017, 10:11 am
A program was developed by the United States which would facilitate juveniles getting their visa and status in the United States sped up. [read post]
17 Jun 2017, 6:19 am
On consideration of Appellee’s petition for reconsideration of this Court’s decision, United States v. [read post]
