Search for: "United States v. Clay"
Results 281 - 300
of 305
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Nov 2007, 7:48 am
The guide was compiled by United Cerebral Palsy. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 7:16 am
The Illinois / Chicago resource guide for individuals with cerebral palsy and special needs was assembled by United Cerebral Palsy. [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 3:50 am
See United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 7:43 am
This guide is a portion of United Cerebral Palsy's One-Stop Resource Guide. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 10:10 am
., et al & United States of America v. [read post]
25 Oct 2007, 8:27 pm
[37] V. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 6:37 am
The song eventually ended up on three CDs, distributed both in Puerto Rico and the continental United States. [read post]
1 Sep 2007, 8:09 am
We affirmed their convictions in United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2007, 7:18 am
The westlaw headnote states, "The Court of Appeals, Clay, Circuit Judge, held that Indian tribe was restored tribe, for purposes of Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. [read post]
23 Jul 2007, 5:23 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 5:09 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 1:51 am
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0203p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ RICHARD WADE COOEY, II, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. [read post]
4 May 2007, 10:42 pm
Teodoro Toledo and Joseph Tucker claim that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) breached their rights under a collective bargaining agreement. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 6:29 am
" In United States v. [read post]
4 Apr 2007, 12:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 3:56 am
United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 9:23 am
Maybe in some world where everyone agreed about what the post-Booker structure of sentencing would be, but not here.In United States v. [read post]
13 Feb 2007, 5:27 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2007, 11:44 am
I previously noted that the result in Briggs and Clay would have been different had they been tried today, due to the R.C.M. 912(f)(4) change designed to compel a different result in United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 3:35 pm
See United States v. [read post]
