Search for: "United States v. Close"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 14,187
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2007, 4:26 am
District Court for the Western District of Washington has issued a preliminary injunction stopping court-martial proceedings in the case of United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 9:38 am
Moreover, it is not a monopolist in the United States. [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 8:40 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2022, 5:43 am
More recently, in Hassen v. [read post]
5 Dec 2010, 6:47 pm
In a closely watched case the California Supreme Court recently expanded the scope of a comprehensive general liability insurer’s (CGL) duty to defend “suits” to an adjudicative proceeding before the former United States Department of Interior Board of Contract Appeals (now the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals). [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 3:20 pm
In a closely watched case the California Supreme Court recently expanded the scope of a comprehensive general liability insurer’s (CGL) duty to defend “suits” to an adjudicative proceeding before the former United States Department of Interior Board of Contract Appeals (now the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals). [read post]
1 Aug 2008, 12:30 pm
Gay v. [read post]
28 Aug 2017, 1:32 pm
”[16] The Decision in Martoma In United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2008, 3:00 pm
A couple of interesting dissents filed today in a denial of rehearing en banc in United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 10:04 am
Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 1:21 pm
In the midst of all the chaos this year, the United States Supreme Court did something remarkable. [read post]
20 Apr 2008, 2:50 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 2:53 pm
United States v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 4:23 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 3:21 pm
Anne Acosta the Respondent was citizen of the United States. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 3:02 am
United States (argued February 29, 2016). [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 2:38 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 2:56 pm
Both sides agree that: (i) the City leased the airport property to the United States in 1941 to support the war effort, (ii) the United States made substantial improvements to the property, (iii) the United States terminated the lease in 1948, (iv) the 1948 instrument terminating the lease contained a reversionary clause, and (v) the reversionary clause is triggered if any property that was transferred by the instrument is… [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 3:54 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 2:18 pm
The case is United States ex rel. [read post]
