Search for: "United States v. Jaeger" Results 1 - 19 of 19
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Apr 2016, 8:50 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here: Doc. 25 – Motion for Leave to File Statement of Interest of the United States of America – Filed 4-1-2016  Doc. 25-1 – Statement of Interest of the United States of America – Filed 4-1-2016  Complaint and motion to dismiss here and here. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 12:17 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Jaeger (Voting Rights) State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2018.htmlMendoza v. [read post]
13 Jul 2022, 2:52 pm by Unknown
Jaeger (Voting Rights Act; Redistricting)State Courts Bulletin https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2022.html Baker v. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 12:22 pm by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Jaeger (Voting Rights) State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2018.htmlMendoza v. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 10:05 pm by Matthew Campbell
The Motion, Response, Reply, and United States’ Statement of Interest are below. 18-mtdDownload 24. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 10:14 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States (Endangered Species Act – Grizzly Bears) Aguilar v. [read post]
2 Jan 2022, 8:17 am by Giorgio Luceri
The analysis also referred to a pending case before the CJEU dealing with Community design law (EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann | C-382/21-P) and other EU trade mark cases from 2021. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 10:36 pm
The routine itself, transcribed on the pages of United States Report, succinctly summarizes the reaction of most legal scholars to Pacifica: "I've had that shit up to here. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 2:31 am by INFORRM
United States On 11 April 2024, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that Section 230 immunity applied to two retweets from Donald Trump and his son about a Dominion Voting employee that said he was going to make sure Trump would not win the 2020 election, Coomer v Donald J. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 10:23 am by David Kopel
On May 19, 2022, Cornell penned an article castigating in advance the Supreme Court for being likely to uphold the right to bear arms in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]