Search for: "United State of America v. Doe"
Results 901 - 920
of 4,119
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2008, 7:31 am
In the United States, judges have been less attached to such grand garb. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 9:00 pm
One should emphasize, however, that such provisions only apply to territory under the state party’s control, which does not describe many of the US military’s operational environments.Why Does it Matter? [read post]
3 Apr 2025, 9:18 am
Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. [read post]
17 Jan 2022, 10:53 am
[ “[T]he great deference due state economic regulation does not demand judicial blindness to the history of a challenged rule or the context of its adoption nor does it require courts to accept nonsensical explanations for regulation. [read post]
30 Sep 2024, 7:52 am
United States. [read post]
25 May 2009, 7:15 am
&& 27-35, on file in State v. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 9:01 pm
As the Court put it four years ago in Fisher v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 6:18 am
National Australia Bank, which holds that America’s main law against securities fraud does not apply to investment deals occurring outside the United States, is already having an impact on existing lawsuits and could save foreign-based companies billions of dollars in litigation costs. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 5:19 am
The President of the United States of America is empowered to appoint someone to be a justice of the Supreme Court. [read post]
13 Feb 2020, 6:09 am
Gov’t For almost four decades, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has “possessed the authority to reexamine – and perhaps cancel – a patent claim that it had previously allowed. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 9:07 am
In R and A Synergy LLC v. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 7:41 am
On March 31, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Bank of America, N.A. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
As is increasingly common in contemporary America, those political issues, framed in law, are left to the courts. [read post]
23 Jan 2008, 3:45 am
Mar. 27, 2006) (dismissing a Section 349 claim arising out of an attorney-client relationship for failure to state a consumer protection claim) (citing, inter alia, Exxonmobil Inter-America, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 5:45 am
In Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 8:57 am
Supreme Court's March 2007 decision in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 1:58 pm
[And yes, we realize that "The Americas" does not necessarily (and probably not even specifically in this case) mean "The United States of America" - but it's just not funny without the double-patriotism joke] Related posts:Firm Fight! [read post]
Opening Remarks by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at Ukraine Defense Contact Group (As Delivered)
16 Feb 2025, 12:55 pm
That said, the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 4:44 pm
The defendants moved to dismiss Relator #2’s new qui tam on the grounds that a “common plaintiff, the United States of America, has filed two proper lawsuits . . . against the Defendants alleging identical claims” and thus should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a).In dismissing Relator #2’s new qui tam, the Court found that the two dismissal rule applied because “[i]t is undisputed that a common plaintiff, the United States… [read post]
30 Jun 2018, 2:11 am
As does Mark Levin. [read post]
