Search for: "Savage v. United States"
Results 21 - 40
of 511
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2015, 3:22 am
United States, the Armed Career Criminal Act case in which the Court ordered re-argument in January. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 5:14 am
On June 1, President Trump spoke to governors and the public about deploying the military within the United States. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 7:51 am
Yesterday’s decision in Armstrong v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 4:39 am
” On Friday the United States filed an amicus brief in Fisher v. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 10:38 am
United States, No. 18-1023. [read post]
1 May 2015, 4:25 am
United States, in which the Court recently heard reargument on whether the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 2:16 pm
For example, in Smith v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 3:24 am
” At Slate, Judith Schaeffer looks back at comments about Loving v. [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 2:22 pm
Below Gabor Rona has a sharp response to my earlier post on Charlie Savage’s story on the latest round of Johnson v. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 5:46 am
As Wikipedia notes, “Title III of the Act set rules for obtaining wiretap orders in the United States. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 6:45 am
See Smith v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:07 am
Monday’s decision in United States v. [read post]
3 Jan 2010, 11:20 pm
United States v. [read post]
16 Feb 2014, 12:31 pm
The first is United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 6:52 am
Humanitarian Law Project and United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 6:59 am
Yesterday, the Court heard arguments in United States v. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 6:33 am
In United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 6:26 am
United States, in which the state has asked it to overturn the lower courts’ decisions blocking enforcement of four provisions of its controversial immigration law, S.B. 1070. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 1:20 pm
April 25, 2012 Savage, J.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed whether a plaintiff who sought to use expert testimony to prove elements of a claim under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was barred due to the Certificate of Merit election imposed by Rule 1042.3(a)(1). [read post]
