Search for: "United States v. Burden"
Results 9401 - 9420
of 9,844
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Dec 2007, 7:22 pm
That section is inapplicable here because there is not a United States citizen on each side of the dispute. [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 11:46 am
We squarely rejected the proposition that the defendant has the burden to come forward with information in a decision that came down after the sentencing in this case, United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 7:47 am
This list was put together by United Cerebral Palsy. [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 11:09 am
Alternatively, if we find that Plaza's use was nonconforming at the time the ordinances were enacted, Plaza urges us to find the sexually oriented business ordinances unconstitutional pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 2:33 pm
§337(a), which explicitly provides that all enforcement of the FDCA "shall be by and in the name of the United States. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 12:45 pm
United States Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 219 F.R.D. 93, 100 (D. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 9:29 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 7:18 am
The State has the burden of demonstrating that a seizure was sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satisfy the conditions of an investigative seizure. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 12:42 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 9:51 am
John B. v. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 8:11 am
Paul, Minnesota, ruled in Phelps-Roper v. [read post]
9 Dec 2007, 7:01 pm
The latest, added to the database last week, United States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2007, 7:28 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 5:14 pm
United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 10:30 am
The Court referred to the cases in Delaware that adopted United States Supreme Court’s definition of materiality, including recent Delaware disclosure opinions in the cases of In re Netsmart Techs., Inc. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 4:52 pm
State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108; see People v. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 7:36 am
Snyder's case was back before the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 6:49 am
As new symptoms arise, the fable taught that lawmakers (or regulators) are justified in revisiting the diagnosis, unfettered by judicial interference or constitutional constraint.In the Supreme Court's 1957 majority opinion in United States v. [read post]
5 Dec 2007, 3:48 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 6:33 pm
Pharmaceutical Resources and Par Pharmaceuticals v. [read post]
