Search for: "Word v. U. S"
Results 1081 - 1100
of 2,468
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Mar 2017, 3:21 pm
(Tabor v. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 10:52 am
Further, in making her separation-of-powers point, Menon nods to the justices’ potential new colleague, citing Judge Neil Gorsuch’s controversial concurrence in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 5:46 am
Deere & Co. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 6:53 pm
(a) The following words or phrases, when used in this Ordinance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: Applicant shall mean any person or entity that has submitted an application pursuant to this Ordinance. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 6:53 pm
(a) The following words or phrases, when used in this Ordinance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: Applicant shall mean any person or entity that has submitted an application pursuant to this Ordinance. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 3:20 am
In Pena-Rodriguez v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 1:30 pm
S. ___ (2015), that the identically worded residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 12:01 pm
S. 36, 40-41 (1950). [read post]
4 Mar 2017, 4:34 pm
And it may inhibit one's ability to vary one’s words for different audiences, in ways that stop short of misleading but help build consensus around core values. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 1:37 pm
Thanks to Bryan U. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 11:33 am
A. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 7:44 am
Yesterday’s argument in Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 9:33 am
Laitram Corp., 406 U. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 9:33 am
Laitram Corp., 406 U. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 6:08 am
Wollschlaeger v. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 3:00 am
“U-K-A-S-E. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 12:24 pm
The High Court’s “fascination” with this statute continues, this time with a case out of Iowa, Dean v. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 12:24 pm
The High Court’s “fascination” with this statute continues, this time with a case out of Iowa, Dean v. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 12:24 pm
The High Court’s “fascination” with this statute continues, this time with a case out of Iowa, Dean v. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 2:01 pm
….[22] Although the Consortium argued that this finding was based on the weight given to the evidence by the Board, a matter with which this Court should not lightly intervene, it is difficult to conclude anything other than that the Board, through oversight, overlooked the expert evidence and submissions it accepted as exhibits AC-114 and AC-114A on December 5, 2014. [23] The Board’s clear wording that Access provided no evidence rebuts the presumption that a… [read post]
