Search for: "U.S. v. Langford"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2008, 12:31 pm
United States v. [read post]
N.D.Ga.: State ID card with address of place searched is a factor in standing, but not determinative
27 Apr 2012, 5:42 am
Langford, 2012 U.S. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 6:49 am
Sergeant Langford provided the report to Sergeant Inglett in a portable document format.State v. [read post]
27 Mar 2016, 11:00 am
LEXIS 35118 (MD PA, March 18, 2016), a Pennsylvania federal district court upheld prison authorities' refusal to allow an inmate to change his religious designation from Christian-Catholic to Islam so he could participate in Ramadan.In Langford v. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 8:30 am
City of Orlando, 2008 U.S. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 3:14 pm
U.S. v Langford is about a politician who went bad. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 6:18 am
Sims, 2009 U.S. [read post]
26 May 2017, 6:29 am
A divided panel of the U.S. [read post]
3 Dec 2014, 4:13 am
U.S. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2020, 4:00 am
The Case of Nonprofit Fundraising (June 12, 2020).From SSRN (Non-U.S. [read post]
25 Jan 2020, 1:59 pm
Randy Beck and John Langford argued for the revival of qui tam statutes as a check on executive officials. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am
Schiro No. 18-0278 (Tex. 2019) (attorney fee award based on fee-shifting statute reversed and remanded for redetermination).Cognate Place Name ROHRMOOS VENTURE, ERIC LANGFORD, DAN BASSO, AND TOBIN GROVE, Petitioners,v.UTSW DVA HEALTHCARE, LLP, Respondent. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 4:00 am
Dickson, State Constitutional Interpretation, and the Religion Provisions of the Indiana Constitution, (Indiana Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2016).From SSRN (Non-U.S. [read post]
29 Jul 2007, 9:12 am
Hearthstone Homes U.S. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 3:08 pm
U.S. [read post]
2 May 2020, 1:07 pm
United States, 290 U.S. 13, 16 (1933)); see United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 7:16 am
From a panel decision Bennie v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 4:00 am
U.S. v. [read post]
24 May 2017, 2:22 pm
Langford 16-886 Issues: (1) Whether a state court unreasonably applied this court’s cases under Section 2254(d)(1) when it held that a misplaced adverb in one jury instruction on state law did not violate federal due process; and (2) whether the U.S. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 1:34 pm
Rogers, 45 U.S. 567, 573 (1846)). [read post]
