Search for: "James v. United States" Results 1801 - 1820 of 4,937
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Mar 2018, 9:38 am by Eugene Volokh
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that principle under the United States Constitution.... ... [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 2:56 am by Amy Howe
Commentary on United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 10:00 am by David Kimball-Stanley
§ 2333, reads: Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees. [read post]
21 May 2008, 7:33 pm
"The government now has to make a showing that it can't possibly make" -- that Witt's presence causes a problem in her unit -- given that those who worked with her in the military supplied her with glowing recommendations and outrage at her ouster, said James Lobsenz, part of her ACLU legal team. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 11:52 am by Tara Hofbauer
Michael Knapp informed us that the Second Circuit has granted an en banc rehearing of United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
While the Supreme Court has not retreated from the core holding in Ferber, it has made shutting down the marketplace more difficult with its child pornography holdings in a series of cases, including United States v. [read post]
31 May 2015, 4:20 pm by INFORRM
United States The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the state’s criminal libel law which allows for punishment of up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $3,000 for libellous statements is unconstitutionally overboard. [read post]
27 May 2014, 7:45 pm by Maureen Johnston
United States 13-983Issue: Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 6:51 am by Conor McEvily
Politifact.com evaluates a claim by presidential candidate Rick Santorum that Justice Ginsburg “prefers” the South African constitution to the United States Constitution; it concludes that “Santorum’s take on Ginsburg’s comments twisted a handful of words to mean something they did not. [read post]