Search for: "Field v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 5,871
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2024, 4:51 pm by INFORRM
This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 10:20 am by David Aaron
It targets non-U.S. persons who are outside the United States and authorizes the government to compel certain communication service providers within the United States to assist the government in acquiring those targets’ communications. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 6:05 am by Corina Heri
Switzerland case concerned a group of older Swiss women; the territorially and substantively ambitious Duarte Agostinho v. 32 Member States was brought by six Portuguese children and young people; and Carême v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 10:31 am by Daniel Deacon
The descriptive account also suggests that the Supreme Court’s decision in Oil States v. [read post]
The United State Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released guidelines for AI patentability in February 2024. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 9:47 am by Dennis Crouch
Under the doctrine, named after the Supreme Court’s 1950 decision in United States v. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 9:19 am
That movement is at the heart of the operationalization of technology enhanced due diligence in the field of business and sustainability (including human rights). [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 1:00 am by INFORRM
This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field. [read post]
4 Apr 2024, 10:31 am by Gregory Weber
GAO also noted that the United States Court of Federal Claims recently held in Myriddian, LLC v. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
” ENDNOTE [1] See Order, Lujan Claimants v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 7:28 pm
In 2016 the United States Government published its first National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 8:22 am by admin
United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 5:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Thus, the declarations were not subject to the general rule of grand jury secrecy because they were not “evidence actually presented to [the grand jury]” nor “anything that may tend to reveal what transpired before it” (see United States v Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 923 F2d 241, 244 [2d Cir 1991], citing Fed Rules Crim Pro rule 6 [e] [2]). [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 3:39 pm by Guest Author
Origin and Meaning of the Anti-Power-Concentration Principle In Seila Law v. [read post]