Search for: "United States v. Burden"
Results 9481 - 9500
of 9,844
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2007, 3:59 pm
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 2:24 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 11:19 am
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 2007 U.S. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 8:03 am
United Staffing Alliance, another ERISA case involving a claimed right to medical benefits. ** 06-1505, Meacham v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 12:50 am
A: There is a difference in the magnitude of the burden. [read post]
30 Sep 2007, 1:44 am
See United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 1:38 pm
In Miller, the Ninth Circuit ruled that where the government establishes a prima facie case that a defendant received and failed to report corporate funds, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that the funds were intended to be a non-taxable return of capital. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 7:20 am
In United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 1:04 pm
Purepac Pharma, Faulding, Watson Pharma, Danbury Pharma, Teva, Zenith Labs, Ivax, Apotex, Torpharm and Eon Labs) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (06-1572). [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 4:54 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 10:39 pm
In a (not entirely successful) attempt to keep the litigation of this contentious case under control, Judge Peck, from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, bifurcated the trial—limiting the first phase to the questions of whether Iridium was insolvent or had unreasonably small capital. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 4:51 am
[www.oranous.com][www.oranous.com]No. 07-5439 _________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________________________ RALPH BAZE, ET AL., Petitioners v. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 4:38 pm
Member Liebman found that the Union had met its burden of establishing relevance by pointing not only to a relevant contractual provision, but also to facts prompting its concern that the contract had been violated: an apparent increase in the volume of subcontracts and a possible decrease of two bargaining-unit positions, coupled with the Union business agent's observation that unit employees seemed to be idle while … [read post]
22 Sep 2007, 9:31 am
We would imagine the burden rests on KKR and Goldman. [read post]
21 Sep 2007, 4:18 pm
In United Air Lines, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 10:05 pm
Concluding that LPI had not met its burden, the Maryland District Court then found: "LPI is actively involved with filing Lupin’s ANDAs with the FDA, and marketing and distributing the approved generic drugs in the United States. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 1:57 pm
See Vicuna v. [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 12:49 am
Last week I noted the story and decision of City of Springfield Code Enforcement v. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 7:33 pm
United States, 527 U.S. 173, 188 (1999). [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 2:35 pm
"We conclude that there does exist a sufficient link," noting that in Loving v. [read post]
