Search for: "Montana v. United States" Results 121 - 140 of 1,008
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2021, 8:31 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
 4:45 – 5:00:  Closing Day 2: (presented with the Criminal Law Section, State of Montana) Friday, May 7, 2021 12:45 – 1:00: Opening (Lillian Alvernaz, Indian Law Section Chair; James Taylor, Criminal Law Section Chair; Sam Alpert, State Bar of Montana)  1:00 – 2:45: The Death Penalty in State & Federal Courts Panelists: Michael Donahoe, Deputy Federal Defender, Federal Defenders of… [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 3:56 pm by Pennsylvania Employment Lawyer
 There Is No Federal Drug Testing Law for Private Employers in the United StatesCheck Your State - and Check With Counsel! [read post]
5 Apr 2021, 9:53 pm by Josh Blackman
The Acting SG wrote that the "United States would be able to offer the Court a distinct perspective on the litigation-cost issues implicated by this case. [read post]
25 Mar 2021, 10:51 am by Legal Aggregate
He founded the law school’s Environment and Natural Resources program and served as a special master for the United States Supreme Court in Montana v. [read post]
21 Mar 2021, 9:05 pm by Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely
That rule—derived from the Court’s decision in Montana v. [read post]
14 Mar 2021, 9:03 pm by Series of Essays
Miller, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law McGirt v. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 5:01 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
An excerpt: When acting within its territorial boundaries and with respect to internal matters, an Indian Nation retains the sovereignty it enjoyed prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution except to the extent that its sovereignty has been abrogated or curtailed by Congress (see Montana v United States, 450 US 544, 564; United States v Kagama, 118 US 375, 381-382; Cayuga Nation v… [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 10:39 am by Tia Sewell
So far, more than 50 countries have ordered doses of the Sputnik V vaccine. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Montana Department of Revenue, in which the High Court held that states cannot bar families participating in generally available student-aid programs from selecting religiously affiliated schools for their children. [read post]