Search for: "Sharp v. United States" Results 321 - 340 of 1,447
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Apr 2010, 6:31 am by Anna Christensen
At oral argument, the petitioners, the respondent, and the United States all urged the Court to adopt the Gartenberg standard, even while quibbling over just what proper application of the standard would entail. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 3:07 am by Amy Howe
United States, the Court will consider whether to uphold a Pennsylvania man’s criminal conviction for threatening statements made on Facebook. [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 3:29 pm by Kevin LaCroix
National Australia Bank, in which the Court clarified that the U.S. securities laws applies only to securities transactions that take place in the United States, either on an exchange or otherwise. [read post]
As one of many examples, after the Titanic sank, the United States enacted a law that required any American ship carrying over 100 tons of weight to have enough lifeboats for every passenger. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 11:50 am by Scott R. Anderson, Yishai Schwartz
The United States described the evolution of its position on Jerusalem from this point forward in its 2014 merits brief in the matter of Zivotofsky v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:41 am by Mark Graber
The following post is by Mark Graber, co-editor with Mark Tushnet and Sanford Levinson of the recently published Oxford Handbook of the United States Constitution. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 9:00 pm by Vikram David Amar
Notable state judicial review under state constitutions in fact predated the Philadelphia Convention and Marbury v. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
A police action in the premises of a local newspaper journal had resulted in sharp criticism on social media and websites. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 9:23 am by rbm3
Sharpe, c1998 HF1425 .M37 1998 See Catalog Apathy LOSING TWICE: HARMS OF INDIFFERENCE IN THE SUPREME COURT / EMILY M. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 11:49 am by rbm3
Sharpe, c1998 HF1425 .M37 1998 See Catalog Apathy LOSING TWICE: HARMS OF INDIFFERENCE IN THE SUPREME COURT / EMILY M. [read post]