Search for: "Moore v. Proper" Results 141 - 160 of 623
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Dec 2018, 7:38 am by Kevin LaCroix
In the city proper, the  Det kongelige slott, built in the 19th century and now serving as the home of Norway’s present King Harald V and Queen Sonja, sits on a rise within the city center and looks eastward down Karl Johans gate, the central city’s main thoroughfare, toward the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament building. [read post]
25 Dec 2018, 7:38 am by Kevin LaCroix
In the city proper, the  Det kongelige slott, built in the 19th century and now serving as the home of Norway’s present King Harald V and Queen Sonja, sits on a rise within the city center and looks eastward down Karl Johans gate, the central city’s main thoroughfare, toward the Storting, the Norwegian Parliament building. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 5:05 am by Gene Quinn
The Federal Circuit recently issued a non-precedential decision in LiquidPower Specialty Products v. [read post]
13 Aug 2018, 6:01 am by Jeff Welty
Div. 2013) (because a search warrant “specifically directed a search of defendant’s person,” it was proper for officers to require the defendant to remove his clothing); Moore v. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 12:12 pm by Stephanie Zable
As the Supreme Court noted in the 1981 Dames & Moore case, “[t]he language of IEEPA is sweeping and unqualified. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 6:59 am by Edith Roberts
” In a strong dissent, Judge Karen Moore objected to “the radical view of probable cause expressed in the majority opinion—a view far more expansive than any circuit has taken to date. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:02 am by Josh Blackman
” It is not a given that any further proceedings would be “proper,” given the court’s definitive ruling, albeit on a threshold question about the preliminary injunction. [read post]
25 May 2018, 6:41 am by John Elwood
The power authority argues that Vitol will lose either way, either on the merits (as the 1st Circuit already held after assuming jurisdiction was proper), or because the 1st Circuit holds that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Vitol companies’ challenge to the remand order. [read post]