Search for: "United States v. York"
Results 881 - 900
of 14,144
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2009, 5:41 am
United States, 2009 U.S. [read post]
27 Nov 2012, 6:55 am
On October 16, 2012 petitioner filed a Motion for an Order to the United States Marshal to Serve Respondent. [read post]
7 May 2014, 4:00 am
The State’s reduction of its employer contribution for health insurance premiums for judges was an unconstitutional diminution of judicial compensationBransten v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03214, Appellate Division, First DepartmentSitting and retired members of the New York State Judiciary challenged the State’s recent decrease in its employer contribution to the cost of the judges' health insurance premiums,… [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 6:04 pm
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT (Argued: December 3, 2014 Decided: October 16, 2015) “Plaintiff-appellants, who are authors of published books under copyright, appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Chin, J.) in favor of Defendant Google, Inc. [read post]
25 Oct 2019, 10:03 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded this decision. [read post]
25 May 2012, 4:02 pm
Two bills have been proposed in the New York State Legislature that aim to de-anonymize online commenting. [read post]
12 Jan 2009, 6:56 am
United States, No 04-41196 (5th Cir., Oct. 11, 2006). [read post]
17 Oct 2010, 7:46 am
SEE UNITED STATES V. [read post]
6 Apr 2010, 6:02 am
Last week, the United States Supreme Court reversed and held, in a 5-4 decision, that CPLR 901 is not a state substantive law that trumps FRCP Rule 23. [read post]
13 Dec 2024, 7:03 am
The plaintiff is a private religious institutional consisting of multiple colleges around the United States. [read post]
1 May 2018, 12:51 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, applying the reasoning in its own decision in Kiobel v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
The Positions Clause [1] employs the catch-all term “office, civil or military, under the United States,” whereas the Officials Clause [2] uses the catch-all term “officer of the United States. [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 8:30 am
In United States v. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 8:22 am
In today’s United States v. [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 1:05 pm
United States v Requena, 980 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. [read post]
2 May 2013, 12:57 pm
People with a keen grasp of legal history may recall that from the time that the United States Supreme Court decided Furman v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 2:30 pm
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ———————————–x BELLMER DOLLS, a Partnership, PETER MAVROGEORGIS, ANTHONY MALAT, and PETER SHEERIN, Plaintiffs, - v - : ASIM SHAIKH aka ASIM GRABOWSKI-SHAIKH, HUNGRY EYE RECORDS LLC, PUBCO, DANIEL SKIBRA, and : JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 1:54 pm
Courts around the United States have adopted various forms of this test, with EFF often participating as amicus or counsel. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 11:24 am
In short, the Amber Alert was no evidence that A.B.M. was (or remains) outside of Mexico, let alone that she was (or remains) in the United States. [read post]
