Search for: "Smith v. U.S. Government (Department of Justice)"
Results 161 - 180
of 597
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2009, 1:22 am
OR STATE GOVERNMENT WORKS [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 12:42 am
Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), excerpted below. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 8:23 am
Behold United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2020, 3:23 pm
(relisted after the Sept. 29 conference) Smith & Nephew Inc. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 12:23 pm
Madison,[1]5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)· Cooper v. [read post]
11 Jan 2019, 2:32 pm
And in North Carolina Department of Revenue v. [read post]
9 Sep 2017, 4:35 am
Kahn posted the Justice Department’s brief opposing the cert petition in Bahlul v. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 7:56 am
Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948), has a holding keyed to patent-eligibility under 35 USC § 101, which was perpetuated in Bilski v. [read post]
27 May 2022, 1:54 pm
Smith v. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 12:46 pm
In NFIB v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 3:16 pm
Dreeben is wearing an ordinary business suit, and not the morning coat usually worn by male lawyers for the federal government, though later, in questioning, he will tell the justices, “I am speaking on behalf of the Justice Department. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 1:06 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 8:13 am
The Justices will consider Defense Department v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 2:03 pm
UPDATE -- I missed the continuation of the footnote on the next page:The primary circumstance cited in the government’s motion is that Attorney General Eric Holder has changed the Department of Justice’s policy on whether the Fair Sentencing Act applies to cases in which the defendant was sentenced after enactment of that legislation. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 10:42 pm
In short, then, it seems to me that the Justice Department isn’t forgoing any important arguments here. [read post]
6 May 2019, 12:05 pm
McFadden, 18-7277 Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 8:10 am
U.S. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 7:04 am
This case will draw the Justices into an examination of atrocities in the Somali government in the 1980s and 1990s. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 5:14 pm
The Department of Justice has the documents because they were seized with a search warrant, not because of their status under the Presidential Records Act. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 1:05 pm
The argument is based on a Supreme Court case, called Smith v. [read post]
