Search for: "Emery v. United States" Results 41 - 60 of 62
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2012, 2:45 pm by Larry
United States, 607 F.3d 771, 773 (Fed. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 10:19 am by John Steele
The United States Supreme Court held that a single violation of Brady obligations is not sufficient to create civil damages liabilities for a district attorney’s office under section 1983. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 9:37 am by Rebecca Tushnet
The court didn’t resolve the issue, because other issues were fatal.In Emery v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 9:12 pm by David Lat
They point out that this is 3M’s third bite at the apple — the company previously filed two similar cases in New York state court. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 2:50 am
In case you're wondering why this topic has been chosen, it has been quite controversial in the United States and, in a recent judgment in Och-Ziff, Mr Justice Arnold considered that it was actually part of both EU and United Kingdom trade mark law.  22 good souls have signed up for it already. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm by Law Lady
Medicare Fraud: CLINIC OWNERS GET PRISON FOR STEALING MEDICARE FUNDS, United States v. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 9:58 am by thejaghunter
United States Marines only ever voice this sentiment with power and precision. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 8:10 pm
[edited to add link to case] In a 3-2 en banc  ruling in United States v. [read post]
12 May 2009, 8:42 pm
Carlisle: The United States Supreme Court Says that Non-Signatories Can Enforce Arbitration Agreements Whenever State Law Would Permit them to Enforce Contracts Generally, Philip J. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 9:20 am
UPDATE:  The California Supreme Court's decision in Rico v. [read post]
27 Jul 2007, 12:57 am
Charles Swift, counsel to Salim Hamdan, the enemy combatant whose legal case, Hamdan v. [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 1:24 am
Kaplan on Monday prevented attorneys Robert Fink and Caroline Rule from withdrawing as defense counsel to former KPMG partner Richard Smith in United States v. [read post]