Search for: "Strong v. United States" Results 1941 - 1960 of 7,092
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Apr 2009, 9:59 am
But Rule 83.3(c)(3) makes special provisions for attorneys for the United States (e.g., the U.S. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 6:11 am by Chris Wesner
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON In re: GYPC, INC., Debtor Case No. 17‐31030 Adv. [read post]
12 Jun 2016, 2:43 pm by Florian Mueller
In other words, an identical act of infringement would yield two different damages awards simply because the infringers packaged their products in different units. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 1:10 pm
The United States contracted with private airlines to deliver supplies to those posts, and it provided “hazard pay” for the pilots and crew members of those airlines.In 2004, the United States contracted with Capital Aviation to provide bi-weekly flights to Baghdad and Kabul. [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 9:08 pm
Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and the Executive’s constitutional duty “to preserve the national security,” United States v. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 8:21 am by Katie
Accordingly, the detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, consequently, the district court properly denied Appellant's motion to suppress.Affirmed.J. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 8:20 pm by Kenneth Anderson
(Kenneth Anderson) I’ve now had a chance to read a little more closely the decision, majority and concurrence, in Kiobel v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:33 am by Ben Vernia
” The Court also found persuasive the government’s brief filed in relation to the petition for a writ of certiorari in US ex rel Nathan v Takeda Pharm N Am which had argued that the claim requirement was both “unsupported by Rule 9(b) and undermines the FCA’s effectiveness as a tool to combat fraud against the United States. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 9:02 am by Steve Vladeck
 committed by an enemy belligerent against the United States in the context of an armed conflict. [read post]
20 Feb 2020, 12:17 pm by Bona Law PC
In the United States, Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal for anyone (person or entity) to “monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations. [read post]