Search for: "KING v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE"
Results 141 - 160
of 549
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jan 2011, 6:19 am
United States, the Court (in an opinion by the Chief Justice, with Justice Kagan recused) unanimously upheld a Treasury Department rule that treats medical residents as full-time employees rather than students, thereby subjecting them to payroll taxes. [read post]
17 Nov 2013, 9:01 pm
Second Department Justice Marc C. [read post]
16 May 2024, 7:00 pm
United States and Idaho v. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 9:22 am
In Gonzalez v. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 7:40 pm
The Appellate Division of the Fourth Department affirmed. [read post]
2 Mar 2015, 6:48 pm
The Appellate Division of the Fourth Department affirmed. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 7:02 am
Roy is a Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 1:39 pm
King [read post]
11 Jan 2024, 1:24 pm
In November 2020, the agency filed a complaint against big cat exhibitors Jeffrey and Lauren Lowe (of “Tiger King” notoriety) for Animal Welfare Act and Endangered Species Act violations (United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 6:34 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 4:15 pm
The takeaway for the American electorate is that the future of the United States, every four years, can be determined by a handful of voters in a couple of states. [read post]
15 Nov 2023, 4:41 pm
Also includes articles on Native American law in the Supreme CourtBoldt Decision — United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 6:04 am
” One week ago today, the Court heard oral arguments in King v. [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 2:00 pm
" As Chief Justice Roberts's analysis in King v. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 10:41 am
United States, 19-6113, and Bazan v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 1:01 pm
” Rusk State Hosp. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 1:57 pm
United States (Indian Commerce Clause)Whiteagle v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 5:31 pm
King. [read post]
2 May 2014, 5:31 pm
King. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 8:00 am
Now before the United States Supreme Court and supported by anti-LGBTQ groups, and the United States Department of Justice, the bakery argues that it has a First Amendment right to discriminate based on the owner’s religious beliefs. [read post]
