Search for: "CASH v. UNITED STATES" Results 1441 - 1460 of 2,411
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Feb 2010, 10:29 am
Supreme Court - United States - Sports - Fantasy - Government [read post]
21 Apr 2008, 11:52 am
" Consequently, a state drug offense punishable by more than one year qualifies as a "felony drug offense," even if state law classifies the offense as a misdemeanor. [read post]
21 Sep 2021, 6:04 am by Florian Mueller
Two days later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will finally hold its postponed (due to Hurricane Ida) hearing in Continental v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 2:36 am
Icaza, 492 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2007), and United States v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 6:31 am by Joel R. Brandes
The Court found that Regulation 3 does not carry the force of law (see Weiss v. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 1:55 pm by Ilya Somin
Yet throughout the United States, government agencies increasingly rely on “civil forfeiture” to bolster their strained budgets. [read post]
22 May 2017, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
VC Laster’s Transcript Ruling in Gerlanc v Beatrice A recent transcript ruling by Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery in Gerlanc v Beatrice, CA No. 2017-0211-JTL (Mar. 23, 2017), reaches the opposite result on similar facts due to key differences in Delaware’s LLC Act. [read post]
22 May 2017, 3:28 am by Peter Mahler
VC Laster’s Transcript Ruling in Gerlanc v Beatrice A recent transcript ruling by Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery in Gerlanc v Beatrice, CA No. 2017-0211-JTL (Mar. 23, 2017), reaches the opposite result on similar facts due to key differences in Delaware’s LLC Act. [read post]
4 Feb 2022, 4:42 pm by Andrew Hamm
” Nevertheless, the 10th Circuit upheld the district court’s award on a “diversion of foreign sales” theory, namely that the foreign sales affected U.S. commerce because any lost sales for Hetronic abroad had consequences for Hetronic’s cash flows in the United States. [read post]
7 Jun 2009, 2:15 pm
The "statement of counsel" signed by John Whealan states:Based on my professional judgment, I believe the panel decision is contrary to the following decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States: The Telephone Cases 126 U.S. [read post]