Search for: "United States v. Clay" Results 141 - 160 of 302
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
20 Jun 2018, 4:10 am by Edith Roberts
United States, in which the court held on Monday that a decision not to grant a proportional sentence reduction does not require a detailed written explanation. [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 1:58 pm by Woodrow Pollack
In this case, the hybrid tennis court was not “used” in the United States - it was “used” in Spain and that use was broadcast in the United States.You can watch some of the match here:Decision affirmedMarcinkowska v. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 1:37 pm by Sheppard Mullin
  The Copyright Act provides that "no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until pre-registration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. [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]
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]
23 Nov 2009, 7:12 am
United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007)); see also Rita, 551 U.S. at 356 (“The appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say, depends upon circumstances. [read post]
10 Dec 2007, 4:38 pm
This Guide was compiled by United Cerebral Palsy as a comprehensive Guide for cerebral palsy. [read post]
31 Aug 2007, 7:18 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
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]
12 Oct 2012, 5:59 am by jadamengel
The plaintiff’s complaint in Mendenhall alleged, inter alia, that the speed camera ordinance in Akron violated Due Process and Fifth Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. [read post]