Search for: "Phillips v. United States" Results 461 - 480 of 1,103
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Nov 2014, 11:36 am by Benjamin Bissell
All across the United States, people are going to the polls today to vote in this year’s midterm elections. 19.3 million early votes have already been logged in the most expensive midterm election ever. [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 6:54 am by Brad Kuhn
For those of you interested in hearing from eminent domain experts across the United States on hot topic condemnation issues, I hope you’ll join us at the ALI-CLE’s 32nd Annual Eminent domain and Land Valuation Litigation Program. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 9:01 am by Lyle Denniston
Phillips of the Washington, D.C., office of Sidley Austin LLP, will represent the generic firms, with twenty-five minutes. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 6:11 am by Jim Sedor
The agency also approved of a second set of regulations in the form of an interim final rule responding to the ruling in McCutcheon v. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 7:30 pm by Jordan Bublick
  The 11th Circuit previously explained in the case of United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 5:38 am by Ben
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al in the United States District Court, Central District of California [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 3:15 pm by Amanda Traphagan
In 1996, the State of Texas sued the Big Four tobacco manufacturers – Phillip Morris, R.J. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 4:42 pm
I was so sorry for him as Tillman made protest against equal suffrage for the Negro race in the United States that I must have missed much of Tillman’s oratorical effect. [read post]
1 Aug 2014, 9:45 am by Glenn
They’re just not an antitrust violation in the United States. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 2:45 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
United States, 714 F.3d 1311,1315 (Fed. [read post]
13 May 2014, 1:08 pm
” Three federal judges have already found this statute unconstitutional (see Vives v the City of New York, 305 F Supp 2d 289, 299 [SD NY 2003, Scheindlin, J.], revd on other grounds 405 F3d 115 [2d Cir 2004] ["where speech is regulated or proscribed based on its content, the scope of the effected speech must be clearly defined"]; see also Vives 405 F3d 115, 123-124 [2d Cir 2004, Cardamone, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part] [Penal Law § 240.30(1)… [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 1:14 pm by Eleonora Rosati
He submitted that current interpretation of fair use, eg Cariou v Prince, is different from what fair use used to be, say, 20 years ago] should be imported into these laws - as well as different approaches that have arisen in the course of these processes. [read post]