Search for: "United States v. Davidson" Results 161 - 180 of 243
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Nov 2024, 2:35 am by Federal Employment Law Insider
” The boycott of Bud Light last year when it used a transgender influencer for a social media promotion resulted in the loss of its spot as top-selling beer in the United States. [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
The same was true for claims that a rap song helped motivate a listener to murder a police officer, see Davidson v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 7:06 pm by MOTP
The arbitrator agreed with Rain & Hail that Jody James did not "timely present[] notice of its claim in accordance with the provisions of the crop insurance policy" and, further, "did not state a presentable loss" because crops from performing and non-performing farm units were commingled. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 1:05 am
The only difference discoverable between the two cases is, that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens; whilst in the individual States, the election of a representative is left to about as many hundreds. [read post]
19 Nov 2024, 12:50 pm by McKennon Law Group
United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054, 107 S.Ct. 928, 93 L.Ed.2d 979 (1987)); see Greenwald v. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 7:58 pm by MOTP
Any arbitration shall be conducted in Harris County, Texas, United States of America in the English language. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 4:30 am by Dan Eller
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division, touched on this issue in a decision last week.In Morris v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 4:59 pm
United States, when the Court considered whether to overrule Miranda. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Rowan, No. 05-30536 On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, a 60-month sentence of supervised release following a conviction for possession of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) defendant's sentence is a non-Guideline sentence since it falls outside the applicable range and was not based on an allowed departure; but 2) in light of the deferential standard set forth in Gall, there was no significant procedural error in the sentencing decision. [read post]