Search for: "Rand v. United States" Results 21 - 40 of 276
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2021, 4:17 pm by INFORRM
  The newspaper was ordered to apologise to the plaintiff for saying she “fixed the rand”. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 8:01 am by William Ford, Victoria Gallegos
Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state for political affairs; Abigail Golden-Vázquez, vice president and founding executive director of the Aspen Institute Latinos and Society Program; and Amb. [read post]
3 Jan 2021, 8:49 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
In United Steelworkers Local 2251 v Algoma Steel Inc., in an arbitration of a dual Canadian-American citizen working in Canada, but living on the American border. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 7:41 pm by Josh Blackman
Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. [read post]
The district court dismissed these claims stating that the alleged taking had not sought compensation in the earlier state court proceedings as required by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 5:57 am by Michael DelSignore
 The Rand cases discusses what makes a statement admissible under this rule and under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 5:01 am by Sean Quirk
The joint note verbale also cites the 2016 arbitral tribunal ruling in Philippines v. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 3:06 am by Keith Mallinson
Delrahim rightly states that “[w]e should not transform commitments to license on FRAND terms into a compulsory licensing scheme. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 2:24 am by Schachtman
In addition to the temporal disconnect, the majority gave virtually no consideration to the three-way relationship between the product supplier defendants, the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs’ employer, the United States government. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 4:25 pm by Patricia Hughes
At the Supreme Court of Canada, the covenant was found to be invalid, as not running with the land and as a restraint on alienation; in part because it was not possible “to set such limits to the lines of race or blood as would enable a court to say in all cases whether a proposed purchaser is or is not within the ban” and was thus void for uncertainty (Rand J., Noble v. [read post]
26 May 2020, 3:06 pm by Patricia Hughes
There are the usual exemptions, as well as others not usually specified, including people just passing through the province to elsewhere, although they must stop only for necessary reasons (also see a similar provision for people transiting through the NWT to Nunavut for less than 12 hours and for non Yukon residents travelling to a neighbouring jurisdiction, allowed a maximum 24 hours), “a family unit of parents and children, to facilitate shared custody of children as per a court… [read post]
6 May 2020, 12:01 pm by Scott R. Anderson, Margaret Taylor
Rand Paul in late April—but never formally introduced—would have operated similarly but would have provided expedited procedures through which any individual senator could force a vote on a motion to allow remote voting for up to 30 days, provided that three-fourths of the Senate voted in favor. [read post]