Search for: "United States v. Doe" Results 1721 - 1740 of 44,298
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2013, 7:59 pm by Miriam Seifter
  The United States, participating as an amicus supporting reversal, takes a middle ground. [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 7:09 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States: neff-cert-petition.pdf us-waiver-letter.pdf Questions presented: 1. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 6:48 am by MBettman
On July 8, 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. [read post]
19 Jan 2016, 7:54 am by Kent Scheidegger
Supreme Court's orders list this morning does include certiorari grants as well as denials, and the Court did take up United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 4:05 am by Howard Friedman
United States, (ND TX, March 30, 2010), a Texas federal district court held that the Gospel tract does not violate U.S. counterfeiting laws (18 USC 474 and 475) because it neither poses a risk of fraud nor does it pose a risk of facilitating would-be counterfeiters. [read post]
28 Aug 2023, 6:57 am by Keith E. Whittington
North Carolina State University] I noted last month that a Fourth Circuit panel had handed down a divided decision in Porter v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 3:46 pm by Steve Bainbridge
 In my own defense, however, I will note it does not occur to me that I should be able to use the power of the state to shut these irritants up, even if they are, oooh scary, hiss hiss, Big Corporations. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 5:35 am by Joel R. Brandes
The Court observed, however, that the inquiry does not end there, and went on to analyze whether the children were "wrongfully retained in the United States . [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 8:38 pm by Josh Blackman
A plurality concluded that a citizen does not have a fundamental right to bring her noncitizen spouse to the United States. 576 U. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 3:50 pm
On February 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) holding that the state-action immunity doctrine does not protect a state-created hospital authority from antitrust scrutiny. [read post]