Search for: "New Doe Child #1 v. United States" Results 1301 - 1320 of 1,535
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 May 2022, 3:50 pm by David Bernstein
" MICHAEL OMI & HOWARD WINANT, RACIAL FORMATION IN THE UNITED STATES 122 (3d ed. 2015); see also PETER H. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 12:56 pm by Laurence Tribe
  In the landmark case of Wickard v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 9:05 am by Jeffrey J. Spina-Jennings
What does it mean for an organization to be operated for the promotion of social welfare? [read post]
New requirements would include reporting mean and median hourly rates, as well as a separate second report to be provided by employers that have 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors (so long as 1 employee is in CA). [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 2:15 pm by Guest Blogger
  After all, while “family reunification” is a familiar goal of the statute, one would be hard-pressed to identify places where the statute prioritizes immigration benefits on the basis of whether one arrived in the United States as a young child, or on the basis of whether one was culpable for one’s immigration violation. [read post]
26 Jul 2015, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
The Panopticon blog has interesting posts on the new threats to the Information Tribunal, as well as Facebook, child protection and outsourced monitoring. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 4:36 pm
  (Applause.)Let me ask you: Are you ready to elect Kamala Harris and Tim Walz president and vice president of the United States? [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 7:35 am
New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its reinvigoration of the Confrontation Clause in Crawford v. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm by John Dean
  And given the very recent ruling in United States ex rel. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 2:00 pm by Amy Howe
According to news reports, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a judge on the Chicago-based U.S. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 4:43 pm by INFORRM
This is how he interprets the case law of the ECtHR at [109]: “It is true that in S v United Kingdom the court does not expressly refer to the reasonable expectation of privacy but its analysis seems to me to be consistent with it. [read post]