Search for: "James v. United States (two Cases)"
Results 1081 - 1100
of 2,863
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2019, 3:53 pm
The chief justice says, “I have the opinion of the court in two cases being decided together. [read post]
5 Sep 2023, 9:02 am
Shawn Still (1:23-cv-03792) (civil removal proceedings) Mar-a-Lago (MAL): United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 5:27 pm
Unit A Feb. 1981)). [read post]
17 Aug 2017, 10:53 am
A D.C. federal district court judge ruled yesterday in United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 11:51 am
” The case of Martinez-Hidalgo v. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 11:45 pm
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/01/28/09-50088.pdf United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 9:27 am
United States. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 9:27 am
United States. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 4:00 am
The 1879 Supreme Court case Baker v. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 8:11 am
James Pohl, the presiding judge in United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 5:23 am
Professor Michael Morley has likewise recognized that these two clauses have been construed “in pari materia. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 5:51 am
., P.C. a/a/o James Gajadhar v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 3:27 am
James J. [read post]
LXBN This Week Ep. 3: Facebook’s IPO, Oracle v. Google, POM’s “Juice Wars” and U.S. v. Roger Clemens
29 May 2012, 4:26 pm
And lastly we have the second go-around in United States v. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 5:14 am
Todd v. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 9:52 am
Victoria Clark posted two rulings in the transgender servicemember ban litigation, Doe v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 4:00 am
Two years ago, in Littman v. [read post]
4 Jan 2023, 4:43 am
District Court judge James L. [read post]
13 Jan 2008, 4:47 pm
Because statutes enacted under the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution must provide clear notice to the States of their liabilities should they decide to accept federal funding under those statutes, and because we conclude that NCLB fails to provide clear notice as to who bears the additional costs of compliance, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 08a0007p.06 … [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 12:10 pm
Indeed, their brief in other places states their opinion that significance testing is not necessary at all: “Testing for significance, however, is often mistaken for a sine qua non of scientific inference. [read post]
