Search for: "United States v. Armstrong" Results 221 - 240 of 335
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2017, 1:03 pm by Stuart Kaplow
There are more than 5.6 million existing commercial buildings in the United States today. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 1:03 pm by Stuart Kaplow
There are more than 5.6 million existing commercial buildings in the United States today. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 10:04 am by Lyle Denniston
United States — justification needed by police officer, after he has pulled over a vehicle for a traffic violation, to go beyond minimally intrusive searching of questioning Armstrong v. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 7:11 am by Susan Hennessey
It prohibits any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 4:43 am
United States, 976 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1992). [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm by Bexis
App. 1991), the court barred pharmacist claims.KentuckyHyman & Armstrong, P.S.C. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 9:53 am by Guest Author
”   In other words, Pennsylvania Coal demonstrates why it is so important for courts to keep in mind the principle the Supreme Court articulated in Armstrong v. [read post]
4 Aug 2012, 9:18 am by Steve Hall
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has deepened this injustice. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 6:00 am by William Ford
Unsatisfied by her response, Nadler concluded his questioning by rather bluntly stating that the Trump administration will need to offer a more compelling argument to reauthorize the “perhaps useless” CDR program than “maybe someday it’ll do some good. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am by Dave
In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by Article 8 (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, § 76, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27138/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I; and Connors, cited above, §§ 83 and 92) 68. [read post]