Search for: "United States v. Cunningham"
Results 101 - 120
of 264
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2015, 1:08 pm
Team Members: Joseph Fortunato (3L), Sameer Ponkshe (3L) In this year’s competition titled United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 4:05 pm
Clark v Jeter, 486 US 456, 461 (1988). [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 3:49 pm
Clark v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 5:02 am
Citing People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433) and United States v Jones (132 S Ct 945}, the Court of Appeals ruled that the State agency's action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions and “did not require a warrant” but “on the facts of this case such surveillance was unreasonable”The decision TLC decision is posted on the Internet… [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 6:27 am
Cunningham, 413 F.3d 1199 (U.S. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 3:18 pm
A federal judge ordered his release in March 2010, but the United States government has fought that order. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 6:42 am
The Times reports that North Korea has attempted to strike a deal with the United States: the dictatorship would halt its nuclear tests in exchange for the United States suspending routine military exercises with South Korea. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 5:47 am
State v. [read post]
28 Dec 2014, 3:00 am
See, e.g., Cunningham Charter Corp. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 3:11 pm
United States. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 12:52 am
Cunningham v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 11:29 am
And the United States Supreme Court and courts of other states have treated the right as extending beyond firearms. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:15 am
Cunningham v. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 7:37 pm
Spriggs, Margy Waller, Jill Cunningham, Michael R. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 7:35 am
Almost two years after the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 1:37 pm
United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), require that the jury find facts justifying an increase in either end of the range of the prescribed penalty. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 3:00 am
Enter., Inc., 650 F.3d 1178, 1182 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); Cunningham Charter Corp. v. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 1:21 pm
United States v. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 7:26 am
Finding that the pilots’ complaints raised only “minor disputes” that were subject to mandatory arbitration under the Railway Labor Act, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss (Cunningham v United Airlines, Inc., February 4, 2014, Holderman, J). [read post]
