Search for: "Michigan v. United States" Results 1821 - 1840 of 3,261
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Nov 2013, 5:14 am
Miller and Wellons did not purchase an investment unit. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 10:57 am by Matthew Bush
App.)Petition for certiorariBrief in opposition (forthcoming)Amicus brief of Michigan et al.Reply of petitioner Coleman v. [read post]
25 Aug 2024, 6:10 pm by Andy Grewal
United States, finally resolved a conflict over the proper deference standard for tax regulations. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 7:56 am by Ronald Mann
Although they are paid as civilian employees, they routinely wear military uniforms and are obligated to maintain membership with an appropriate rank in the state National Guard where they are located, which carries with it (by law) membership in the Army National Guard of the United States. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 11:12 am by Jeanne Long
  The Court reasoned that both the Michigan and United States Supreme Court have held that even a case given full retroactivity does not apply to a closed case. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 4:59 pm by Erin Miller
Bakke (1977); and Citizens United v. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 9:30 pm by RegBlog
Supreme Court held in Michigan v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 4:30 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
On March 31, 2008, the court in the underlying action granted the motion of EMI and GM to dismiss the action on the ground that the parties’ agreement required that disputes relating to the agreement be commenced in the federal or state courts in Michigan. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:30 am by Kiran Bhat
Holland of the Associated Press (via the Wall Street Journal) report on the Court’s denial of a petition filed by Michigan and other states asking the Court to order the U.S. [read post]
5 May 2009, 2:05 pm
Supreme Court's 1984 decision in United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2008, 12:13 am
The United States as intervenor and amicus supports the position of the Holy See with respect to the Holy See's status as a foreign state and the constitutionality of the FSIA. [read post]