Search for: "U. S. v. Grant"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 3,553
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2011, 11:46 am
v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 2:42 pm
Notwithstanding Warrant 2's Rule 41 defect, the Government urges us to reverse the district court's order granting Krueger's motion to suppress, because, according to the Government, the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining that Krueger demonstrated prejudice as a result of the Rule violation.For the reasons outlined below, we disagree.U.S. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 3:33 am
If, as appears likely, the drafters of the LLC membership interest repurchase provisions at issue in Saleeby v Remco Maintenance, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 31447(U) [Sup Ct NY County July 25, 2016], thought they were helping the company avoid the possibility of litigation over the value assigned to the outgoing member’s interest, as it turns out they were sorely mistaken. [read post]
31 Dec 2018, 3:56 am
Marcus v Antell, 2018 NY Slip Op 32527(U) [Sup Ct NY County Oct. 5, 2018]. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:22 pm
Batchelder, 442 U. [read post]
18 May 2023, 6:09 am
The case before the Supreme Court, Murray v. [read post]
14 Apr 2024, 4:48 am
” The Court’s opinion in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 7:13 am
Regan and in Regan v. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 6:01 am
Sang Seok Na v Malik & Assoc., P.C. 2023 NY Slip Op 30831(U) March 20, 2023 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 100962/2017 Judge: David B. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 6:55 am
S. 549, 557 (1995) ; Hodel v. [read post]
28 Mar 2009, 7:12 am
* * * [Appellant] Forrester contends, and the court of appeals held, that the clerk's notation in the trial record that the clerk's office was "[u]nable to locate other items requested" affirmatively reveals that the trial court failed to notify Forrester of its intent to dismiss the case. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 5:34 am
The Court of Appeals began its analysis of the issue by noting that ‘“[u]nder Terry v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 11:43 am
Unwired Planet challenged Birss J's assumption that it held a dominant position (which would be necessary for Huawei v ZTE to apply). [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:29 am
The district court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 11:31 am
Ubah, 2008 NY Slip Op 31133(U)(Sup.Ct., New York Co., decided 4/14/2008), the court granted summary judgment to Tower, holding that the insured's 7-month delay in reporting an accident with injury on the insured's property was unreasonable as a matter of law. [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 7:43 am
Slip Op 51759[U], *30). [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 2:01 pm
Indeed, the majority opinion doesn’t contain a single mention of last month’s NRA v. [read post]
28 Dec 2022, 5:51 am
The Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 1:45 am
We see the following in Marom v Anselmo ;2011 NY Slip Op 30756(U); March 31, 2011; Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 101440/09; Judge: Joseph J. [read post]
11 Feb 2012, 1:25 pm
The Court ruled that even though Section 6015(f) does not contain a time limit, Congress expressly granted the Treasury broad authority to promulgate regulations to administer Section 6015(f). [read post]
