Search for: "Sherman v. United States" Results 361 - 380 of 1,039
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2024, 9:34 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Unilever United States, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 6429805, No. 20-cv-1672-AGS-BLM (S.D. [read post]
26 Nov 2006, 2:43 pm
They contend that conclusory allegations cannot simply be ignored, as suggested by petitioners and the United States, because the distinction between factual allegations and conclusions of the pleader was previously rejected by the Court in United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2016, 8:56 am by Earl Drott
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, had diversity jurisdiction over the case. [read post]
If pursued, the DOJ’s probe could be the biggest antitrust hit taken by the movie theater industry since the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
  The case is significant in that, for now, despite the long-standing rule to the contrary in the seminal United States Supreme Court case of Hanover Shoe v. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 6:13 pm
  The case is significant in that, for now, despite the long-standing rule to the contrary in the seminal United States Supreme Court case of Hanover Shoe v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 10:30 am by Amy Howe
For Hasty and Sherman, for example, that would be that they were simply following the terrorism designations made by the FBI and policies established by the Bureau of Prisons; the other officials were trying to avoid allowing a dangerous person to leave the United States. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 11:50 am
The Second Circuit based its holding upon a principle first announced by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2013, 11:50 am by Sheppard Mullin
The Second Circuit based its holding upon a principle first announced by the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 4:10 pm by Dan Stein
Holder, this Term’s challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Court held that Section 4 of the law, which identifies the state and local governments that are subject to the Act’s “preclearance” requirement, is unconstitutional based on “current conditions” in the United States. [read post]