Search for: "Rita v. United States"
Results 241 - 249
of 249
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2020, 11:29 am
However, it was also the rule of law that advanced religious freedom in Canada (in the 1959 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Roncarelli v. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 1:12 pm
(citing State Farm Life Ins. [read post]
14 Oct 2024, 7:13 pm
Comparing Cuba’s National Assembly Elections in 2018 and 2023” Larry Catá Backer, Penn State University, “Cuba—The Construction of a State of Misery” Enrique S. [read post]
19 Sep 2010, 5:41 pm
Doug Berman (Sentencing Law and Policy) quotes some of my own favorite parts of the Constitution and opines that the criminal-law related provision given the least respect or attention in modern times is the Reprieves-and-Pardons Clause of Article II (“The President … shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment”). [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 3:06 pm
â€5 The site’s “Facebook Principles†state that a user may “set up a personal profile, form relationships, perform searches and queries, form groups, set up events, add applications and transmit information through various channels. [read post]
7 Apr 2010, 3:44 pm
The two companies will also pay a combined $3.3 million civil penalty to the United States as well as to Alabama and Louisiana, and $200,000 to Louisiana organ [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 5:43 am
"[18] Significantly, anti-trust laws do not necessarily guarantee low prices, only the conditions that lead to them.[19] This distinction is intentional; the United States Supreme Court has recognized that while it may set the circumstances for achieving a fair price, the workings of a liberal market are better able to determine the fair price itself.[20] While anti-trust laws prohibit fixing maximum prices, the entire goal of the FPGPA is to accomplish… [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 2:59 am
What are the lessons learned so far from the O104:H4 outbreak? [read post]
31 Oct 2009, 4:06 pm
Paul, United States Magistrate Judge Jeanne Graham fined the company $100,000 and ordered it to make a $50,000 community service payment to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to benefit the Rice Creek Watershed. [read post]
