Search for: "Brown v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 3,365
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 May 2019, 1:25 pm by Steven Cohen
Brown et al – United States District Court – District of Arizona – May 10th, 2019) involves a dispute over medical billing. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:11 am by MOTP
Merely stating the seemingly obvious--that the unit of analysis is “the case”--does not solve all problems. [read post]
9 May 2019, 2:12 pm by Andrew Hamm
Vitale, “declaring that the state may not compel the recitation of a state-composed prayer in schools” Griffin v. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 11:34 am by Steven Penney
In the United States, challenges to this exemption under the Fourth Amendment failed, with the Supreme Court holding in United States v White that consent surveillance does not intrude upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. [read post]
21 Apr 2019, 9:01 pm by Joseph Margulies
We talked about some of the many battles this interaction has birthed, from massive resistance against Brown v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 2:33 am by Patti Waller
E. coliO157:H7 is one of thousands of serotypes Escherichia coli.[1] The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the E. coli O157:H7 refers to the specific antigens (proteins which provoke an antibody response) found on the body and tail or flagellum[2] respectively and distinguish it from other types of E. coli.[3] Most serotypes of E. coli are harmless and live as normal flora in the intestines of healthy humans and animals.[4]  The E. coli bacterium is among the most… [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 5:53 pm by Bridget Crawford
The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 6:00 am by Rick Pildes
  The first is Hugo Black, thoroughly a product of Alabama at the time he joined the Supreme Court and the only Justice from a Deep South state on the Supreme Court that decided Brown v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 6:00 am by Sandy Levinson
”  One might compare this, ruefully, with the fact that not only Holder, but also his boss, the former President of the Harvard Law Review and a former member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty, never once offered an interesting observation about the United States Constitution and the vision presumably underlying it nor indicated any deep interest in molding the federal judiciary through judicial appointments. [read post]