Search for: "Scales v. United States" Results 181 - 200 of 2,661
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2007, 3:11 pm
Congress could have expressly limited the Rule's application to specific acts, but it did not do so.On part two Judge Baker found error, but ultimately held no prejudice under the constitutional standard (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt), citing United States v. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 5:00 am by Paul Rosenzweig
The data trade war will be exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2008, 10:01 pm
Nathan (right):'What we know about how states and the federal government currently execute people in the United States is deeply troubling. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 10:00 am by Rosalind English
He had successfully resisted an extradition order sought by the United States on the grounds that price-fixing in the UK was not illegal (Norris v United States (2008) UKHL 16, (2008) 1 AC 920). [read post]
31 Dec 2020, 4:14 am
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the federal agency responsible for approving and overseeing the distribution of vaccines in the United States. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 6:59 am
Yesterday, the Court heard arguments in United States v. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 1:33 pm
United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949) (holding that, in a close case, erroneously admitted evidence -- even if cumulative of other evidence -- can 'tip the scales' against the defendant) and Hawkins v. [read post]
27 Jun 2018, 3:23 pm by Guest Author
The United States Supreme Court today, on Wednesday June 27, 2018, reversed the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Janus v. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 9:24 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
All plaintiffs in this case have been legally authorized to reside and work in the United States for many years. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 8:48 am by Jack Goldsmith
Marty Lederman says in response to my posts that the big difference between the Bush and Obama preemption doctrines was that the Bush Administration “argued that international law permits the United States to engage in a ‘first use’ strike, in a nonconsenting state, against a state or nonstate actor that has not already engaged in an armed attack against the United States, before any threat of attack is ‘fully… [read post]