Search for: "KITCHENS v. UNITED STATES" Results 161 - 180 of 359
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jul 2014, 7:00 am by Jane Chong
The Section 215 telephony-metadata program serves the paramount government interest in preventing and disrupting terrorist attacks on the United States, a compelling special governmental need. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 7:11 am by NCC Staff
But Justice Antonin Scalia said in his dissent in United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 2:05 pm by Lyle Denniston
This will be the first case reaching the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of such state bans since the Justices in United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 6:27 am
[T]he saw hung in the kitchen at Gusto's when he had worked there in February, 2004.State v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 3:00 am by Andrew Lowy
Citing Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2014, 5:25 pm by INFORRM
On 18 June 2014 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (T) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 35. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 3:16 pm by Cicely Wilson
Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.Read More: George Clinton Can’t Prevent Sound Recordings From Being Sold Kitchen, et al v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 10:59 am by Ruthann Robson
Herbert held that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who... [read post]
14 Jun 2014, 2:53 pm by Stephen Bilkis
And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females as held in United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 11:23 am by Howard Wasserman
United States: "[T]he global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 9:30 am by Lyle Denniston
United States left in lingering doubt just how far Congress may go to pass a law to implement a world treaty. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 8:30 am
If it does not “ ‘give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice’ ” of its scope, United States v. [read post]