Search for: "Byrd v. United States"
Results 121 - 140
of 209
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2016, 7:02 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 8:03 am
In Holt v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 9:01 am
It approaches this age-old problem through the lens of SongByrd, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 4:00 am
It is currently unknown whether Rheingold will file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
26 Mar 2016, 11:16 am
This precise issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 7:17 am
The parties in United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 9:01 am
Dillon v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 6:24 am
However, as Rob Howse notes, the definition is limited at the beginning of Subsection (h)(1) to an agreement that “includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action. [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 6:50 am
United States, in which the Supreme Court allowed the House of Representatives to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). [read post]
29 Apr 2015, 10:58 am
Byrd Center for Legislative StudiesMicki Kaufman, CUNY Graduate Center, “Everything on Paper Will Be Used Against Me: Quantifying Kissinger”Billy Wayson, “Making Sense of Digital Information Using Qualitative Analysis SoftwareTom Faith, Office of the Historian, Department of State, “Mapping the Foreign Relations of the United States Series”James Wyatt, Robert C. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 5:32 am
Byrd v. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
In Salazar v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 9:01 pm
Byrd. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 8:02 am
As illustrated by the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Byrd v. [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 1:32 pm
United States, 134 S. [read post]
17 Aug 2014, 9:01 pm
That is what happened in United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:29 pm
United States. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 7:08 pm
In today’s decision in United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm
United States ex rel. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 2:10 pm
Professor Lund disputed this, noting that the “pre-existing right” protected by the Second Amendment was the right as it existed in the United States under the common law and state constitutions, not the right as it existed under English law. [read post]
