Search for: "Holland v. United States" Results 141 - 160 of 448
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jun 2015, 11:21 am by Quinta Jurecic , Staley Smith
The Journal describes how secret negotiations between Iran and the United States, dating back to 2009 and facilitated by Oman, have made possible a potential nuclear deal. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:00 pm by John Ehrett
United States 14-1145Issue: Whether, under Holland v. [read post]
13 May 2015, 7:15 pm by Maureen Johnston
United States 14-1145Issue: Whether, under Holland v. [read post]
6 May 2015, 11:27 am by Sebastian Brady
” His exchanges with Simpson are apparently in keeping with the role of vocal online proponent of jihad that Miski has played since leaving the United States in 2009. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 8:44 am by Maureen Johnston
Donald 14-618Issue: (1) Whether the Michigan courts' decision not to extend United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
  (This is also likely to be the case under the fledgling tort of intrusion into seclusion established in C v Holland [2012] NZHC 2155.) [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 7:52 am by John Elwood
United States, 13-9972, concerning a similar issue. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 6:42 am by Clara Spera
The Times reports that North Korea has attempted to strike a deal with the United States: the dictatorship would halt its nuclear tests in exchange for the United States suspending routine military exercises with South Korea. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 7:08 am by John Elwood
United States, 14-282, is yet another gift from the St. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:05 am by John Elwood
United States, 13-10639, asking whether the Eleventh Circuit’s appellate procedural default rule – prohibiting consideration of issues not raised in an appellant’s opening brief – conflicts with retroactivity rules when new precedent changes the law after briefing. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 12:58 pm by John Elwood
United States, 13-10639 (third relist), asks whether the Eleventh Circuit’s appellate procedural default rule – categorically prohibiting consideration of issues not raised in an appellant’s opening brief – conflicts with the retroactivity rule set out in Griffith v. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 5:42 am by John Elwood
United States, 14-29, a case seeking to clarify several standards regarding insider trading. [read post]