Search for: "Seven Cases v. United States" Results 1361 - 1380 of 4,321
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Dec 2008, 3:56 pm
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 10:11 am
From 2007 to 2013, Justice Kruger was an assistant to the United States solicitor general. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 9:21 am by Kelly Buchanan
This issue haunted the courts until 1983, when the case of R v Williams came before the Court of Appeal. [read post]
8 Jan 2025, 3:00 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Circuit's unduly expansive approach to NEPA (an approach currently under review by the Supreme Court in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Vineesha Sow
Two cases were filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, State of Texas v. [read post]
18 Aug 2024, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat
This fall, state supreme courts in Michigan and Pennsylvania will hear cases challenging their states’ use of life without parole sentences. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 4:13 pm
Supreme Court decided that the public good provided by sobriety checkpoints outweighed the Constitutional problems with them, in Michigan Department of State Police v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 5:01 am by James Edward Maule
It is not difficult to guess what part of the second paragraph of the opinion in United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2021, 8:08 pm by Francis Pileggi
The Delaware Supreme Court has announced a revised standard for an important aspect of corporate litigation: the analysis of pre-suit demand futility for purposes of pursuing a derivative stockholder claim, in United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 9:25 am by Charles Roth
NIJC filed or joined amicus briefs in seven of the cases discussed below. [read post]
22 Feb 2009, 4:25 pm
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 2:46 am by John L. Welch
” The TDRA does not define the term “mark,” and so the Board looked to Section 45 of the Act for its meaning of “mark,” concluding that it must “at least recognize the possibility that, in an unusual case, activity outside the United States related to a mark could potentially result in the mark becoming well-known within the United States, even without any form of activity in the United States. [read post]