Search for: "Brehm v. United States"
Results 1 - 14
of 14
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Aug 2012, 4:00 pm
” But putting that aside, I think the far more significant point for present purposes is how inconsistent the Fourth Circuit’s analysis of Brehm’s contacts is with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ analysis in United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2013, 12:27 pm
Brehm received another favorable trial judgment, this time against Unum Life Insurance Company – the largest group disability insurer in the United States. [read post]
1 Sep 2012, 9:01 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 7:45 am
United States v. [read post]
17 May 2012, 6:00 am
And we should hear soon from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which heard argument in April in United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2015, 3:58 pm
The court ruled that Unum, a Fortune 500 company and the largest group and individual disability carrier in the United States, abused its discretion in terminating Mondolo’s disability benefits. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 8:17 am
Steve Vladek over at Lawfare beat me to the post on the conflict, here, with Ali where Judge Erdmann found: Neither Ali’s brief predeployment training at Fort Benning, Georgia,22 nor his employment with a United States corporation outside the United States constitutes a “substantial connection” with the United States as envisioned in Verdugo-Urquidez. [read post]
8 May 2013, 12:33 pm
(click here for a copy of the ruling Mondolo v. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 2:36 pm
Ginn, 47 M.J. 238 (C.A.A.F. 1997), that court shall order a hearing pursuant to United States v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 5:09 pm
Eisentrager and United States v. [read post]
3 Jan 2007, 3:59 pm
In Stone v. [read post]
19 May 2012, 6:00 am
Steve Vladeck’s comments added to this by pointing to a series of recently decided or argued cases on contractor liability, included the lesser noticed United States v. [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 4:21 pm
United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), holding that an alleged statement by a co-defendant was not incriminating on its face to the defendant; that sufficient evidence supported the defendants’ convictions; and that because one of the defendants performed the same or similar role within the conspiracy as his codefendants, he was not less culpable than most other participants in his relative conduct, he was not entitled to a minor role reduction under § 3B1.2. [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 8:31 am
Aftermath of Brane v. [read post]
