Search for: "United States v. Bailes" Results 101 - 120 of 790
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jun 2016, 12:22 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Florida (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act - Good Faith Negotiations)State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2016state.html White v. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 5:52 am
United States, 529 U.S. 172, 191 (1997)]; United States v. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 6:44 am
The Court in its ruling relied in large part on a recent United States Supreme Court decision, Rothgery v. [read post]
10 Jan 2009, 1:52 am
In one of their briefs to the Supreme Court (here), the district argues that, among other reasons, the election of Barack Obama shows that the United States political arena has changed drastically from the one that existed when the VRA was passed in 1965. [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 6:20 pm
Integra: Bailing Water Without Plugging the Hole, 20 BYU J. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 12:09 am
 Facciponti works for the taxpayers of the United States of America. [read post]
23 Mar 2019, 7:53 pm by Timothy P. Flynn
Last month, the SCOTUS ruled in Timbs v Indiana that a state's fine or forfeiture scheme may be excessive and thus unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
  June is an important month – it includes Flag Day, Fathers Day, and it is also the month during which the United States celebrates LGBT Pride Month. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 2:01 pm by Karen Breda
Amicus briefs were filed by the  United States Department of Justice, the Bristol County Bar Advocates and various advocacy organizations, Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program, Boston University Criminal Clinic Defenders and more than thirty law professors (including BCLS's Kari Hong). [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 9:44 am by MBettman
Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted) Moore’s Argument The crux of Moore’s argument hinges on the general principles on which Graham was decided. [read post]