Search for: "United States v. Holder" Results 921 - 940 of 4,280
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jul 2019, 8:09 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Because the United States continues to enforce the ACA (as its own brief noted), there is still a case or controversy, as there was in Windsor v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:45 am by Kevin Goldberg
Brunetti appealed this rejection to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found this prohibition on immoral or scandalous marks to be in violation of the First Amendment. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 8:11 pm by Forrest G. Read IV
Companies depending upon key employees coming to the United States also have been stymied. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 3:16 am by Peter Mahler
We find none of the unit holders of Felt Farms LLC complied with the contractual requirements for membership by signing a joinder agreement prior to the expiration of the ninety-day statutory period. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 6:30 am by Mark Graber
United States (1926) claimed that the Supreme Court should not treat as an important precedent the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 because everyone knew Reconstruction was a time in which Republicans were engaged in pure politics. [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 11:46 pm by JP Sarmiento
Since our client resided in Youngstown, OH, her application had a better chance compared to states under the 9th Circuit (see Momeni v. [read post]
2 Jun 2019, 4:40 am by Ben
     PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN AND THE TEST OF SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITYThe United States District Court for the Central District of California went on to rule that Walt Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” had not lifted copyrighted elements from the screenplay of the same name. [read post]
1 Jun 2019, 8:42 pm
§ 6323(e)(3) provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees by a lien holder when the fees are “actually incurred in collecting or enforcing [a lien] obligation” superior to the lien(s) of the United States (emphasis added). [read post]
31 May 2019, 11:06 am by Marc J. Soss
The act also provides that an Indiana court “to the maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution,” must exercise jurisdiction over the trust even if a court of another jurisdiction has or may have proper jurisdiction of a matter involving the trust. [read post]
31 May 2019, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
  Apart from his ACA decisions, in his dissent in Obergefell v. [read post]