Search for: "United States v. Breyer"
Results 1281 - 1300
of 3,533
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 May 2013, 9:01 pm
Arlington v. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 8:59 am
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 8:03 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
13 May 2019, 7:04 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 7:04 am
And the Court issued a per curiam decision in United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 1:04 pm
Supap Kirtsaeng was a Thai student in the United States. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 6:53 pm
United States. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 12:48 pm
”); United States v. [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 9:01 pm
In Nestlé v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 5:38 pm
Yesterday, the Court heard oral argument in United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:03 pm
District Judge Breyer in Levin v. [read post]
4 May 2016, 6:30 am
In Couzzo Speed Technologies v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 12:00 pm
(Ilya Somin) I tend to agree with Eugene that today’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 3:05 am
Waxman, a former United States solicitor general, was caught in the cross-fire. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 7:55 am
United States. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 10:02 am
United States is that the Court is free to rule on substantive Fourth Amendment issues even when there is no remedy. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 9:05 pm
United States.[7] The Court, however, quickly backed down from its anti-delegation rule in Schechter, possibly because of FDR’s court-packing plan. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 11:27 am
United States, the Court affirmed the decision of the Fourth Circuit, holding that a federal sentencing court must determine whether an “offense under State law” is a “serious drug offense” by consulting the “maximum term of imprisonment” applicable to a defendant’s prior state drug offense at the time of the defendant’s conviction for that offense, rather than current state law, because the maximum sentence… [read post]
17 May 2007, 12:55 pm
Ahmad Edwards v. [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 10:33 am
The justices initially wanted Wall to explain how the government could reconcile its position in this case with its earlier position in United States v. [read post]
