Search for: "United States v. 11 CASES, ETC." Results 101 - 120 of 772
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jul 2012, 5:50 am by JB
Here are the questions I've put together for teaching The Health Care Cases, NFIB v. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 6:27 pm by JP Sarmiento
CASE: Immigrant Visa / Consular Processing based on Approved I-140 / EB-11 (Alien of extraordinary ability) CLIENT: Korean LOCATION: Seoul, South Korea Our client contacted us in September 2012, inquiring about the possibility of getting an immigrant visa through the extremely difficult EB-11 category. [read post]
10 Nov 2019, 4:00 am by INFORRM
There should be no question whether Julian Assange is entitled to full First Amendment protection for publication of the Afghanistan war logs, Iraq war logs, and State Department cables for which he was indicted on 11 April 2019 and on 23 May 2019. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 8:30 am
As Wikipedia explains, “The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 3:51 am
Jan. 15, 2009)(Unpub)Affirming dismissal of Black fem Director's HWE claims etc* EEOC v Agro Distribution LLC, No. 07-60447 (5th Cir. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 4:44 pm
  At least that's better than the United States' brief in a related case. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 6:36 pm by John Day
The United States Supreme Court has released its opinion in U.S. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 12:09 am by Vikram Raghavan
Whilst state practice can be found in support (see Filártiga v. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 12:49 pm
  In comparing the two readings what differences in approaches can one discern between that of equity as practiced outside the United States (in Australia) and in the United States.2. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 5:30 am by INFORRM
In R (on the application of Naik) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2011] EWCA Civ 1546) the Court of Appeal confirmed that the exclusion of an Indian Muslim public speaker from the United Kingdom after making statements which breached the Home Office’s “unacceptable behaviours policy” was lawful, and that any interference with his rights was justified. [read post]