Search for: "Hill v. USA" Results 101 - 120 of 531
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Mar 2019, 4:03 am by Edith Roberts
At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that in Kansas v. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 9:17 am
    Long before the elections of 2016, the American Republic had been moving toward more formal and open hostilities in the cultural civil war, one with social, economic, cultural and political consequences, that was one of the great consequences of the immediate post 1945 period. [read post]
30 Jan 2019, 12:39 pm by Adam Feldman
Although many are speculating about the actions of the current “conservative” Supreme Court (see these recent examples from CNN, USA Today and The Hill), the court’s specific decisions are still very much up in the air, as are the justices’ decision-making processes. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 6:32 am by Andrew Hamm
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Robles v. [read post]
23 Jan 2019, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
” For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that by agreeing to hear the New York gun case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 4:13 am by Edith Roberts
In op-ed for The Hill, Kristin Waggoner weighs in on American Legion v. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Edith Roberts
Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s argument in Gamble v. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 12:15 pm by Kevin
Via the Twitter feed of USA Today reporter Brad Heath, we have a new inductee for the Comical Case Names page: United States v. 1855.6 Pounds of American Paddlefish Meat and 982.34 Pounds of American Paddlefish Caviar, filed yesterday in the Southern District of Indiana. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 4:01 am by Edith Roberts
” Kathryn Moore analyzes Wednesday’s argument in Culbertson v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 3:27 am by Edith Roberts
First up is Bucklew v. [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:13 am by Edith Roberts
International Finance Corporation and Republic of Sudan v. [read post]
4 Nov 2018, 10:56 am by Schachtman
(USA) LLC, 752 F.3d 82, 85 (1st Cir. 2014) (affirming exclusion of expert witness whose event study and causal conclusion failed to consider relevant [read post]