Search for: "United States v. Holmes"
Results 161 - 180
of 756
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2024, 5:16 pm
First, it is focused quite directly on the law in action, suggesting that the true functional law is Lynch’s rather than that of the United States. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 6:59 am
Cabell v. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 9:41 am
Holmes, 886 So. 2d 340 (Fla. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 9:07 pm
United States (1919). [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 3:00 am
The Loving decision came at a pivotal moment in the history of race, gender, law, and marriage in the United States. [read post]
2 Feb 2013, 11:33 am
In Illinois v Wardlow (528 US 119 [2000]), the United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, held that a person in a high crime area fleeing at the sight of police is, by itself, sufficient to create reasonable suspicion, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 7:30 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 10:16 am
He also subpoenaed two women’s health clinics for medical records, communications among doctors and with third parties, presumably including the United States. [read post]
7 Jul 2016, 8:42 am
Holmes Prods. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 8:43 am
It’s interesting that the United States hasn’t relied on the Elections Clause in its defense of Sections 4(b) and 5. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 11:05 am
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. [read post]
17 May 2010, 8:12 am
Florida United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2020, 3:46 am
Corp. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 4:28 am
(See Lawrence v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm
United States”Daniel J. [read post]
25 Aug 2019, 2:28 pm
Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 129 (2014) (quoting Holmes v. [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 1:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 9:08 am
State v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 9:01 pm
" Randall Little and Joel Arnold on behalf of the United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 4:30 am
But at least Justice Holmes acknowledged that "[o]f course an employee of the United States does not secure a general immunity from state law while acting in the course of his employment. [read post]