Search for: "US v. Cox"
Results 1 - 20
of 878
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2025, 11:15 am
Lopez v. [read post]
20 Mar 2025, 6:51 am
Oversight v. [read post]
19 Mar 2025, 4:58 pm
In Azar v. [read post]
18 Mar 2025, 6:41 am
During the Biden administration, DHS scanned social media for other targets, such as Americans discussing abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
6 Mar 2025, 6:07 am
Morrison v. [read post]
4 Mar 2025, 6:55 am
” [For analysis of this issue, see article by Adam Cox and Trevor Morrison] Starting on 1/20 (and including 1/27) See also entries below at 1/31 and 2/28Removal & reassignment of DOJ officials, including in positions of national security, ethics oversight, and public corruption investigationsTrump administration/acting Deputy Attorney General Emil BoveOfficials within the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review were removed from their positions. [read post]
27 Feb 2025, 3:15 am
See Bushco v. [read post]
17 Feb 2025, 8:27 pm
Cox (10th Cir. 2018), which asserted that a suppressor "is a firearm accessory … not a weapon. [read post]
31 Jan 2025, 5:24 pm
WWE v. [read post]
29 Jan 2025, 6:00 am
at 128, citing Fetahu v New Jersey Tr. [read post]
29 Jan 2025, 6:00 am
at 128, citing Fetahu v New Jersey Tr. [read post]
22 Jan 2025, 6:38 am
Cox, 289 N.C. 414, 422-23 (1976)). [read post]
14 Jan 2025, 9:05 pm
ENDNOTES [1] Tornetta v. [read post]
2 Jan 2025, 9:05 pm
Raimondo and Trump v. [read post]
16 Dec 2024, 5:23 am
Cox (9th Cir. 2014) (and other cases citing it); see also Boule v. [read post]
25 Nov 2024, 5:44 pm
“Supreme Court wants US input on whether ISPs should be liable for users’ piracy; SCOTUS asks US government for its view on $1 billion Sony v. [read post]
25 Nov 2024, 1:15 pm
" In Sony Music Entertainment v. [read post]
25 Nov 2024, 7:49 am
There is no deadline for the government to file its briefs in the two related cases, Cox Communications v. [read post]
7 Nov 2024, 2:30 pm
It can’t be used in broad marketing. [read post]
4 Nov 2024, 6:39 am
Indeed, there would be no reason for Congress to have imposed such a requirement, which would serve no useful purpose and that would have contravened a longstanding practice of hiring individuals from outside DOJ to commence employment at DOJ in order to handle a particular case. [read post]
