Search for: "Short v. United States" Results 1501 - 1520 of 8,673
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Mar 2008, 1:20 pm
United States:  Judicial Scrutiny of Organizational Conflicts of Interest Intensifies (Oct. 30, 2007). [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 1:05 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed that copyright holders must consider whether a use of material is fair before sending a takedown notice. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 10:29 am by Andres
Because he lives in Europe, he was concerned that his personal data would be sent to the United States, and he wanted European regulators to stop such a transfer. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 5:47 am by Rosalind English
The Appeal  The main ground of appeal was based on the common law right of access to court, established in  Raymond v Honey [1983 1 AC.1, 13] and a series of pre Human Rights cases such as R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Leech [1994] QB 198, and R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 604 at 621[26]. [read post]
30 May 2008, 4:50 am
The Court handed down Riley v Kennedy, 07-77, this week. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 7:20 am by Schachtman
Earlier this month, a panel of the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeal decided a relatively straight forward case by reversing the trial court’s exclusion of a forensic accountant’s damages calculation. [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 9:19 am by Ronald Mann
You could be forgiven if your reaction to the (lengthy) question presented in No. 12-562, United States v. [read post]
14 May 2018, 5:49 pm by Richard M. Re
In its filings in the Supreme Court, the United States raised a new argument that it had not advanced in the court of appeals. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 11:40 am
As noted in this prior post, a Sixth Circuit panel earlier this month indicated that all three members would strongly recommend" en banc review of the "important question" of "whether the continuing use of acquitted conduct as a sentencing enhancement violates United States v. [read post]