Search for: "Texas v. United States"
Results 1741 - 1760
of 8,319
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jan 2017, 6:19 am
Torres v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 2:50 am
Today the Court will hear oral arguments in just one case: United States v. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 12:20 pm
" City of Indianapolis v. [read post]
15 Jan 2011, 12:20 pm
" City of Indianapolis v. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 3:50 pm
§ 3553(f)(1)–(5); US v. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 2:45 pm
United States, which asks the Court to consider an issue regarding the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 7:37 am
Attorneys V. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 7:37 am
Attorneys V. [read post]
23 Jun 2017, 11:49 am
It would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. [read post]
17 Oct 2024, 3:18 am
In his famous concurrence in Youngstown Sheet v. [read post]
1 Mar 2021, 10:27 am
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California said at the outset of today's Epic Games v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 10:39 am
RobbinsCase number: 13-cv-06694 (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York)Case filed: September 23, 2013Qualifying Judgment/Order: November 27, 2013 01/17/2014 04/17/2014 2013-125 SEC v. [read post]
9 Jan 2025, 12:15 am
Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2022, 7:29 am
Under the United States Supreme Court case Brady v. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 8:00 am
United States of America et al., a case heard in the United States District Court Central District of California by Judge Virginia A. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 5:14 am
" United States v. [read post]
[Ilya Somin] Federal Court Again Rejects Texas' Claim that Illegal Migration Qualifies as "Invasion"
28 Apr 2024, 3:09 pm
" This ruling is the latest phase of the ongoing litigation in United States v. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 4:48 am
State v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 12:37 pm
To do so they attempt to distinguish Miami Herald v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 10:59 am
For example, on April 11, 2011, Judge Hoyt from the Houston Division of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that Texas law is on the carrier’s side when it comes to examinations under oath. [read post]
