Search for: "United States v. State of Alabama"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 2,048
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2012, 3:48 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 6:36 pm
” District of Columbia v. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 11:00 am
, 514 U.S. 695 (1995), that a federal court is not a department or agency of the United States for the purposes of making false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 6:25 am
Alabama and Jackson v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 4:00 am
In Whren v. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 10:35 am
Stern v. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:51 am
United States. [read post]
10 Feb 2025, 5:33 am
United States, which dealt with emergency abortion care. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 1:01 pm
The United States already stands alone among developed countries in allowing such harsh penalties for juveniles. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 8:05 pm
Department of State v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 7:03 pm
Instead, the court of appeals relied on the Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
21 Jan 2025, 12:23 am
United States, No. 2:25-cv-00001; Davis v. [read post]
16 May 2019, 7:55 am
United States, 18-7096. [read post]
15 Jul 2019, 9:03 am
United States, where Gorsuch wrote a 33-page dissent, joined by Thomas and Roberts arguing to rein in the administrative state. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 7:45 am
Although almost all Native American tribes in the United States operate under a trust relationship with the federal government, those two tribes were in a trust relationship with Texas from 1968 to 1987. [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
Alabama getaway indeed. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am
Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888). 2139 Sprint Communications Co. v. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 11:38 am
In Mitchell v. [read post]
20 Apr 2022, 6:57 am
ShareMonday’s argument in Siegel v. [read post]
1 Aug 2024, 9:05 pm
The judge, appointed by former President Trump to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, rejected the arguments presented by Alabama and other states, stating that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Biden Administration’s rulemaking was unreasonable or lacked proper explanation. [read post]
