Search for: "Perez v. United States"
Results 241 - 260
of 537
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Apr 2012, 9:09 am
See United States v. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 9:40 am
Radeker and modified in United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:33 am
In 1958, for example, the Supreme Court in Perez v. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 7:30 am
However, her Title VII claim against the Assistant Secretary of State in his official capacity, as well as her Section 1983 and state law claims, were dismissed because of Eleventh Amendment immunity (Canfield v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 3:58 am
In or about August 2010, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, in coordination with DOJ, issued a subpoena to BP for flow-rate related documents from April 20, 2010 to August 9, 2010. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 3:37 am
They contended that the new rule violated the federal Full Faith and Credit Statute (Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was not the part of the DOMA that was struck down by the Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
1 Dec 2015, 7:22 am
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 10:00 am
Indeed, the United States argues that “Officer Perez . . . did not know that he had a duty to diligently pursue the drafting and eventual approval of the warrant by a detached magistrate.” [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 4:23 pm
Obama, and Perez v. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 3:56 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 9:16 am
E.g., United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 9:07 am
United States, 263 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1959); Matter of Pang, 11 I&N Dec. 213 (BIA 1965). [read post]
23 Oct 2013, 7:03 am
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 3:17 pm
United States of America v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 10:27 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2008, 4:00 pm
United States (06-11429) and United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 3:30 pm
In Perez v. [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 6:27 pm
By Lisa Milam-Perez, J.D., and Ronald Miller, J.D. [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 3:45 pm
In Bailey v. [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 6:48 am
United States v. [read post]
