Search for: "Connell v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 197
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2012, 10:00 am by Wells Bennett
So asks Judge James Pohl,  in an order he reportedly issued yesterday in United States v. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 7:23 am by Richard M. Re
United States, Assistant to the Solicitor General Ann O’Connell drew that straw. [read post]
18 Jul 2007, 4:56 pm
Nevertheless, rulemaking without prior comment has increased across a wide range of agencies, a trend that may be strong enough to persist despite the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 11:54 am
Araya Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International LawKristen Eichensehr, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law Recent Books on International LawHenry J. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 12:46 pm by Jacques Singer-Emery
In a session cut short by a stay from the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), the military commission in United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 8:20 pm by Zack Bluestone
The main case she cited was United States v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 8:20 am by Giovanna Shay
Assistant to the Solicitor General Ann O’Connell argued on behalf of the United States as an amicus in support of the state. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 10:28 am by Yishai Schwartz
Citing a DC Circuit case United States v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 7:32 am by Wells Bennett
The latest statement from the defense in United States v. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 4:20 pm by Francesca Procaccini
Connell has essentially two legal arguments for why Judge Pohl is emp [read post]
2 Jun 2016, 6:55 am by Clara Spera
For the United States, Clay Trivett, Robert Swann, Edward Ryan and Major Christopher of the U.S. [read post]
23 May 2017, 12:40 pm by Jordan Brunner, Chris Mirasola
Lastly, Wilkinson argued that the fact that Al Qaeda declared war on the United States should be given little weight. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 1:54 pm by Helen Klein Murillo
Connell rebuts that, “if the United States had chosen to charge these men with these offenses in the United States, they would have had the benefit of an eight-year statute of limitations and could have done so until 2009. [read post]