Search for: "United States v. Cutting" Results 1141 - 1160 of 4,730
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Aug 2006, 9:18 pm
In 1979, President Jimmy Carter appointed her a United States District Judge. [read post]
5 Dec 2012, 12:57 pm by Kedar S. Bhatia
United States was filed with assistance from the ACLU. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 12:38 pm by Robert Chesney
The en banc decision of the Court of Military Commission Review (“CMCR”) in United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm by Rosalind English
The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.6(1) applied in all its force, and it followed from the reasoning of the Strasbourg Court in A v United Kingdom (2009) 49 EHRR as interpreted by the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v F (2009) UKHL 28, (2009) 3 WLR 74 that the Treasury was obliged to afford the claimant bank sufficient disclosure to enable it to give effective instructions about the essential allegations made against it. [read post]
31 May 2023, 2:01 pm by Guest Author
Constitution grants to Congress the power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 1:10 pm
The United States contracted with private airlines to deliver supplies to those posts, and it provided “hazard pay” for the pilots and crew members of those airlines.In 2004, the United States contracted with Capital Aviation to provide bi-weekly flights to Baghdad and Kabul. [read post]
3 May 2012, 10:44 pm
For example, in the United States, those states that have adopted § 2-803 of the Uniform Probate Code would exempt persons who are not “criminally accountable for the felonious and intentional killing of the decedent”. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 5:47 pm
We are unaware of the existence of such a public policy. * * * Thus, minimum wage should not be interpreted as a cut-off amount for child support payments. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 2:32 pm by John Elwood
United States overruled United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 9:02 am by Lebowitz & Mzhen
The defendant objected to the expert’s opinion, and the trial court ruled that his testimony was not applicable to the standard of care that the plaintiff was entitled to receive in the United States. [read post]