Search for: "United States v. Adams" Results 101 - 120 of 2,573
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2023, 4:00 am by Anil Kalhan
Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court vacated the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA in 2020 when—by a 5-4 margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority—it decided Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
10 Mar 2025, 7:59 am by Rick Hasen
Adam Liptak for the NYT: The first case cited as precedent in the first Supreme Court brief filed by lawyers for President Trump since he took office this year was Trump v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 9:55 am by Andrew Hamm
On February 16, the National Constitution Center will host a discussion on United States v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 8:22 am
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-2 in United States v. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 9:24 am by Andrew Hamm
On February 16, the National Constitution Center will host a discussion on United States v. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 8:48 am by Howard Bashman
United States: SCOTUS to address the binding effect of non-majority opinions. [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 9:05 pm
Adams, plaintiff brought suit in 2005 against defendant Mary Noel Adams stemming from defendant’s use of the trademark PHASE FORWARD.After the Trademark Dilution Revision Act was enacted in October 2006, defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s mark did not meet the amended definition of a “famous mark” as one “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United… [read post]
17 May 2008, 4:02 pm
Finally, the article will highlight the legal problems posed by § 3509(m) and comment on current case law, including the pending case of United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2024, 6:13 am by Eugene Volokh
Adams runs Science On Trial, Inc., which "provides forensic consultation services across the United States and the United Kingdom. [read post]
6 Feb 2020, 11:13 am by Public Employment Law Press
The Appellate Division sustained a Supreme Court ruling that rejected the New York-New Jersey Port Authority's arguments that as a bi-state entity created by a federally approved compact it cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§240(1) or 241(6) for injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained while working in a building owned by the Authority.The court explained that the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution is not implicated by the application of… [read post]