Search for: "Elkins v. United States" Results 41 - 60 of 118
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Nov 2016, 2:32 pm by John Elwood
United States overruled United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 1:44 pm by Amy Howe
United States read like a “true crime” novel, involving robberies of drug dealers in the Midwest. [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 7:16 am by Kate Howard
United States overruled United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 11:28 am by John Elwood
United States 15-9260 Issues: (1) Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to establish that the petitioner’s robbery of a dealer of illegal drugs “in any way or degree * * * affect[ed] commerce,” in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 7:43 am by John Elwood
Of last week’s 16 relists, the court dumped nearly half, including United States Forest Service v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 1:18 pm by John Elwood
Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit's decision in United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 6:36 am by Rory Little
However, between its decisions in Ashe and Yeager, the court ruled in United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 4:46 am by Edith Roberts
United States, an insider trading case. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 12:22 pm by Rory Little
The court has long recognized (in United States v. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 10:20 am by Andrew Hamm
United States ex rel. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 7:02 am by scottgaille
Upon his criminal conviction, the United States expected to seize whatever was left of his wealth. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 7:02 am by scottgaille
Upon his criminal conviction, the United States expected to seize whatever was left of his wealth. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:53 am by Rebecca Tushnet
State limits choices of individuals to protect them from consequences of their own decisions. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:05 am by John Elwood
United States, 13-10639, asking whether the Eleventh Circuit’s appellate procedural default rule – prohibiting consideration of issues not raised in an appellant’s opening brief – conflicts with retroactivity rules when new precedent changes the law after briefing. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 12:58 pm by John Elwood
” [Disclaimer: Lawyers at Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this feature, represent one industry respondent in these cases.] [read post]