Search for: "DOE v. Smith"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 6,564
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2015, 7:48 pm
In his majority opinion, Judge Smith wrote that the Administrative Procedure Act does not "require[] the Secretary to remove any alien or to alter his enforcement priorities," and he quoted with approval "the Supreme Court’s description, in [Reno v. [read post]
23 Oct 2024, 9:17 am
In a non-precedential decision in the case of Troseth v. [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 4:15 am
In Hamilton v. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 4:05 am
In State of New Hampshire v. [read post]
10 Oct 2024, 11:00 pm
In the case of Tanibajeva v. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 5:00 am
In the non-precedential case of Reish v. [read post]
28 Feb 2025, 7:46 am
District Court for the Eastern District Court of Texas, in Smith, et al. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2025, 2:02 pm
District Court for the Eastern District Court of Texas, in Smith, et al. v. [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 2:01 pm
Tourchin v. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 2:08 pm
Smith & Nephew, Inc. [read post]
26 May 2009, 9:36 am
Click here to read the opinion in Smith v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 11:23 pm
In United States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 8:57 am
A news flash from London-based law firm Herbert Smith brings tidings that the Court of Appeal for England and Wales has today reversed the decision of Mr Justice Peter Smith in Butters and others v BBC Worldwide Ltd and others (noted here on IP Finance, with a short summary of the facts). [read post]
30 Nov 2014, 3:37 pm
Miller v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 3:02 pm
Smith held that as long as a law is neutral and generally applicable, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause even if it imposes a substantial burden on religion. [read post]
With Carpenter v. United States, Supreme Court Edges Fourth Amendment Doctrine into the 21st Century
27 Jun 2018, 12:25 pm
The post With Carpenter v. [read post]
With Carpenter v. United States, Supreme Court Edges Fourth Amendment Doctrine into the 21st Century
27 Jun 2018, 12:25 pm
The post With Carpenter v. [read post]
21 May 2014, 6:54 am
Smith, Third Circuit: As part of Appellant Smith's sentence for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, he was ordered to pay restitution of $68,452. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 10:11 am
And now as to Target v. [read post]
