Search for: "United States v. Hernandez"
Results 261 - 280
of 668
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
CA11: Damage to door in attempt to enter, without entry, is de minimus for Fourth Amendment purposes
28 Jan 2012, 9:15 pm
Hernandez, 418 F.3d 1206, 1212 n.7 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that "[o]f trifles the law does not concern itself: De minimis non curat lex"); United States v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 1:28 pm
” The Fifth Circuit rejected the employer’s argument, affirming its prior decision in Hernandez v. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 9:16 pm
Category: Administrative Law By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor TitleExela Pharama Sciences, LLC v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 5:13 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 6:47 am
United States, 17-5283, Garcia-Hernandez v. [read post]
1 Jan 2021, 8:06 am
On September 13, the court received a letter from Bertha stating that she would be staying in the United States indefinitely with Z.F.M.Z. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 6:59 pm
Category: Priority By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor TitleMedtronic Corevalve, LLC v. [read post]
23 May 2019, 7:12 am
United States, United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2014, 9:40 am
Category: Infringement By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor TitleLimelight Networks, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 6:25 pm
First, Cisco is an American company with offices throughout the United States, including in this state. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 4:46 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Oct 2008, 6:23 am
As the court in Casey v. [read post]
12 May 2009, 8:37 pm
United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 [1948]} -- compatible with any reasonable notion of personal privacy or ordered liberty would appear to us obvious. [read post]
22 Sep 2012, 2:49 pm
Hernandez, No. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 1:40 pm
” The Second Circuit Court of Appeals tackled this novel question in United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 12:46 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Apr 2014, 7:17 pm
Co. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 7:18 pm
USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 270–71 (1994) (collecting cases); see also United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 9:02 am
Stevic and INS v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 6:50 am
This doctrine holds,in the broadest outline, that English (like U.S.) courts 'will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory' (Underhill v Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897)) or 'will not adjudicate upon the transactions of foreign sovereign states' (Buttes Gas Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) [1982] AC 888, 931G). [read post]
