Search for: "United States v. Louisville" Results 141 - 160 of 276
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2010, 6:50 am by Jay Willis
” At Newsweek, Krista Gesaman has a preview of Snyder v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 10:12 pm by Kelly Ann Booth
That’s what the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held in United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm by Josh Blackman
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] On January 18, Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram Amar filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 10:13 am by Quinta Jurecic
This was a public appearance in his capacity as President of the United States, after all. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 7:14 am
United States, 577 F. 2d 1023 (1978), and Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
United States oral argument reminded me of how little the Roberts Court has actually cared about rule of law values and legal transparency during its 18-year run. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 9:59 am
Plaintiff-Appellant United States of America ("the government") brings this interlocutory appeal challenging an order to suppress the fruits of a wiretap used in the government's case against the Defendants-Appellees, and an order denying the government's motion for reconsideration. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 6:46 am by pscamp01
United States expressly repudiated the rationale of the Olmstead (majority) decision. [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 8:59 am by Nassiri Law
Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, May 25, 2018, United States District Court Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division More Blog Entries: Protecting Your Rights Under FMLA, Sept. 30, 2017, Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 8:59 am by Nassiri Law
Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, May 25, 2018, United States District Court Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division More Blog Entries: Protecting Your Rights Under FMLA, Sept. 30, 2017, Orange County Employment Lawyers Blog [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 5:53 am by Susan Brenner
Under this Directive, `[a]ctions that are taken for the primary purpose of furthering a military . . . function of the United States, regardless of incidental benefits to civilian authorities[ ]’ do not violate the PCA. [read post]