Search for: "Doe v. Rumsfeld, et al." Results 1 - 20 of 45
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Nov 2022, 10:22 am by INFORRM
Arkansas Times LP v Mark Waldrip, et al, No. 19-1378 (8th Circuit, 2022). [read post]
8 Jul 2022, 5:01 am by Elliot Setzer
Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), while the state argued that Rumsfeld v. [read post]
10 Jul 2021, 12:18 pm by Eugene Volokh
If a law does require the platforms to host various materials, all it would take is for the platforms to sufficiently inform the public about that law—something the Facebooks and Twitters of the world have ample communicative resources to do, for instance using a clickthrough warning that they can show once or a few times to their users. [169] Brief Amici Curiae of the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association, Law Student Associations, et al., Rumsfeld… [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 12:17 pm by Rachael Hanna
He cited subsequent cases that have construed Kiyemba narrowly: Aamer, et al. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 5:25 am by Patrick McDonnell
Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) upheld Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul’s conviction and life sentence for conspiracy to commit war crimes. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 6:21 am by Brenna Gautam
Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. reconvened for pretrial proceedings, meeting in open session on July 23 and 25, and in closed sessions on July 24 and 26. [read post]
27 Oct 2017, 10:00 am by Chris Mirasola
During two days of nonclassified argumentation, the defendants in U.S. v Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. argued that the government has delayed, denied, and/or destroyed discovery documents. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:10 am
(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013)In 2010, the faculty at Penn State Law approved the creation of a new concept course, to be named "Elements of Law". [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 1:02 am by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 16, 2012 Decided January 22, 2013 No. 11-1265 AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. [read post]