Search for: "Shorter v. United States"
Results 21 - 40
of 669
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2020, 4:00 pm
Investment Policy Committee v. [read post]
3d Cir.: Employer Must Pay for All Breaks Shorter Than 20 Minutes Notwithstanding “Flex Time” Policy
20 Oct 2017, 3:43 am
Secretary United States Department of Labor v. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 6:22 am
Supreme Court ruled against Intel Corporation in, Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 7:28 am
In Ambrioso v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 1:20 am
The Ninth Circuit last week in United States v, Grant held that Tapia applied not only to the original sentence but also to violations of supervised release conditions. [read post]
14 Nov 2008, 9:43 pm
United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 2:38 pm
United States — a decision from last term about mandatory minimums and jury trials — has surprising implications for retroactivity analysis. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 9:12 am
The emphasis is on clearer, shorter notices. [read post]
22 Sep 2006, 8:43 am
" United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 6:00 am
Dear Rich staffer Steve (The Public Domain) Fishman provided this answer:Stephen FishmanUnlike the United Kingdom, the United States does not follow the rule of the shorter term. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 11:10 am
United States, as five circuits require, or “only . . . that a public official has obtained a payment . . . knowing that [it] was made in return for official acts per Evans v. [read post]
4 Dec 2006, 12:07 pm
The case is Lopez v. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 10:15 am
The case is U.S. v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 12:06 pm
In United States v. [read post]
13 May 2022, 4:41 am
All federal judges take an oath to administer justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 2:11 pm
’ United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2010, 5:00 am
In Marion v. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:58 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2008, 11:03 am
Shorter version: Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides in Baze v. [read post]
15 Mar 2009, 3:20 pm
Currently, Tilem & Campbell has one appeal pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the constitutionality of the previously discussed 100:1 powder cocaine v. crack cocaine sentencing discrepancy. [read post]
