Search for: "Holder v. United States of America"
Results 161 - 180
of 618
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Oct 2018, 6:08 pm
In addition to preventing admission to the United States by individuals from select countries, provisions of the original order included references to permanent resident aliens—that is, non-citizens with lawful status, sometimes referred to as green card holders. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 7:05 am
§109] is a defense to importation, even if the copies were made outside the United States. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 9:01 pm
Wade will be repealed (with abortion still possibly legal on a state-by-state basis) but whether the Court would invent a doctrine under which abortion would be constitutionally prohibited nationwide.Beyond abortion, I asked whether even Griswold v. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 11:19 am
” The current President of the United States, Donald J. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 9:06 am
” In other words, he thought Sure-Tan required the court to reconcile the NLRA and immigration law by excluding from NLRA coverage anyone who could not legally be hired in the United States. [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 8:00 am
Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. et al, case number 2:18-cv-01435, filed in the United States District Court Central District of California, claimed the two works were "in many ways identical". [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 4:53 am
Cox, the privately owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, provides digital cable television, and telecommunications services in the United States, has more than 4 million subscribers and relied on the 'safe harbor' defence in US law.Whilst BMG acknowledged Cox had policies in place to deal with users who repeatedly infringed copyrights, it accused Cox of failing to implement it's own policies and argued that this meant the ISP should be denied safe harbor… [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 6:00 am
The post Mohawk Tribe v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 6:00 am
The post Mohawk Tribe v. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 7:41 am
Accordingly, Congress could not have meant to prevent domestic copyright holders from enforcing their rights against foreign broadcasters who transmit infringing performances into the United States. [read post]
16 Jul 2018, 5:30 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2018, 2:11 am
He's the first president never to have held political office or to have been a general.Silicon Valley, and Microsoft and Amazon up north, and many other tech innovators across the United States, should support Senator Lee. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 2:48 pm
In 2017, in United States Telecom Association v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 5:27 pm
TOMMY BASTIAN; NDEX TITLE SERVICES, L.L.C.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF FANNIE MAE GUARANTEED REMIC PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Fannie Mae REMIC TRUST 2008-16; FNMA AA MSTR/SUB CW BANK; LAURIE MEDER; FANNIE MAE REMIC TRUST 2008-16, Defendants-Appellees.No. 16-51010.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.Filed June 12, 2018.Mark D. [read post]
25 May 2018, 12:21 pm
McGraw Hill et al, was then heard on Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. [read post]
22 May 2018, 5:30 am
Introduction Personal saving, the setting aside of resources today to get benefits in the future, is taxed in a variety of ways in the United States. [read post]
18 May 2018, 3:56 am
" Oil States Energy Servs. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 3:39 am
Someone wrote on Twitter that patent holders had something to celebrate yesterday: After the Supreme Court's Oil States (7-2 confirming constitutionality of PTAB inter partes review) and SAS (5-4 holding that PTAB must render decision on all challenged patent claims after granting review), patent holders were allegedly in a stronger position than before, which--as the same tweeter (I forgot the name) noted--is rarely the case when the Supreme Court overrules the… [read post]
29 Mar 2018, 7:01 am
United States and Beckles v. [read post]
29 Mar 2018, 5:27 am
Canada’s major trading partners including the United States and the European Union recognize that net neutrality rules do not prevent courts or government agencies from ordering the removal of illegal content from the Internet. [read post]
