Search for: "United States v. Head" Results 161 - 180 of 5,868
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jun 2007, 9:37 am
United States, No. 06-6330, justifiably received a lot of attention (see here) because it appears that SCOTUS is finally going to get involved in the long-standing debate over crack sentencing (which has hit new heights since Booker). [read post]
14 May 2020, 6:20 am by Kaufman Dolowich Voluck
Manuel Chavez, addressed the applicability of anti-SLAPP to federal law claims, specifically §1983 of title 42 of the United States Code. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 4:27 pm by INFORRM
The Grand Chamber stated in Cumpana v Romania on 17 December 2004 at paragraph 91, in the context of a publication covered by Article 10, that Article 8 “may require the adoption of positive measures designed to secure effective respect for private life even in the sp [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 1:49 pm by Mark L. McNamara and Collin R. Melancon
On January 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted review of the Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 3:04 pm by Andrew S. Alitowski
In May of 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan heard a case involving a car accident and a woman who claimed that she sustained a closed head injury. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 4:37 pm by Dwight Sullivan
The granted issue in United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2008, 2:15 pm
Posner's use of the word "head" instead of "heads" in the following passage from that court's recent ruling in United States v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 1:59 pm by Scott Bomboy
United States, otherwise known as the “Pentagon Papers” case, from 1971. [read post]
22 Feb 2013, 6:45 am by Bill Araiza
United States, 341 U.S. 494, 589 (1951) (Douglas, J., dissenting). [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 1:30 am by Seth
, Minneapolis-based US Bank is headed for trial in United States District Court in Texas (E.D. [read post]
Recently, the United States Supreme Court affirmed a 2010 ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court, did not have the constitutional authority to decide a state law claim brought by a debtor against a creditor, even though the matter was part of the “core” statutory jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. [read post]