Search for: "Springs v. United States"
Results 941 - 960
of 1,984
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2015, 2:57 am
SABAM followed by Sabam v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 6:00 am
”[v] Justice Anthony M. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 8:36 am
As it turns out, he is called to a different kind of service – as a clerk at the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 11:26 pm
On Monday, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California received a joint ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) statement from Apple and Samsung, which is not publicly accessible. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 2:57 pm
For the factual background of this Apple v. [read post]
29 Aug 2015, 10:58 am
An Introduction to Norovirus The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that noroviruses cause nearly 21 million cases of acute gastroenteritis annually, making noroviruses the leading cause of gastroenteritis in adults in the United States. [5, 9, 13, 31] According to a relatively recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Norwalk agent was the first virus that was identified as causing gastroenteritis in humans, but recognition of its… [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 12:00 pm
The only judge in the world who has held so far that Apple deserved a patent on that concept is Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 11:28 am
In United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 5:30 am
United States.[4] In Dickerson, the United States Supreme Court considered the validity of a congressional statute providing that police who place a suspect in custody are not obligated to provide the now-famous “Miranda warnings. [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 4:00 am
The federal district court, however, refused to accept the stipulation as submitted, concluding that Cheeks could not agree to a private settlement of his FLSA claims without either the approval of the district court or the supervision of the United Stated Department of Labor [DOL].The US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court's holding ruling that in the absence of such approval, parties cannot settle their FLSA claims through a private stipulated dismissal… [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 6:32 pm
United States Dep’t of Labor, answered “yes,” but only if the DOL or a district court first determined that the proposed settlement “is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:28 am
For that reason, well-known cases like United States v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 11:37 am
Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States and Russia will collaborate in bringing forward a United Nations Security Council resolution to identify the perpetrators of chemical attacks in Syria. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 11:37 am
Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States and Russia will collaborate in bringing forward a United Nations Security Council resolution to identify the perpetrators of chemical attacks in Syria. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 10:24 am
The Recorder also says she has a key role but mentions (in the first place) Peter Bicks, a commercial litigation attorney who has apparently had spectacular successes at jury trials in many different parts of the United States. [read post]
24 Jul 2015, 5:56 am
United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (U.S. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 6:28 pm
In Hill v. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 11:35 am
I am an attorney, licensed to practice law in California (and also to appear in a number of federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court). [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 3:19 pm
The reason that your driver’s license issued by your home state is valid in the rest of the United States is because the states have voluntarily entered into reciprocity agreements to recognize each other’s licenses. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 7:25 am
§ 11.01(16) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution because its language "'is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate.'" State v. [read post]
