Search for: "Phillips v. United States" Results 201 - 220 of 783
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2015, 5:29 am by INFORRM
More recently, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in Zakharov v Russia stated that “the interception authorisation, … must clearly identify a specific person …or single set of premises”. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 10:19 am by Jeremy Gordon
Additionally, the United States filed an amicus brief in the case. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Victoria VanBuren
In 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the following arbitration-related cases: In Cont'l Airlines, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 6:54 am by Amy Howe
United States, reversing a Pennsylvania man’s conviction for making threats on Facebook. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 8:53 am
by Michael DorfToday's SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
11 Jan 2009, 9:00 pm
David Bederman of Atlanta will argue for the petitioner, Carter Phillips of Washington, D.C., will argue for the respondent, and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier of the Solicitor General’s office will argue as amicus curiae for the United States. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 7:22 am by Jon Sands
Phillips, No. 11-30195 (12-26-12) (Rakoff, Sr. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:10 am by Edith Roberts
” At The World and Everything in It, Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am by Blog Editorial
  Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 1:16 pm
  The employer-respondent will be represented by Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin, LLP. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 1:10 pm
Therefore, in interpreting and applying this Code section, the courts of this state may draw from the opinions ofthe United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. [read post]