Search for: "United States v. Molina" Results 81 - 100 of 108
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Oct 2015, 9:30 am by Lyle Denniston
  That 1872 ruling, in the case of United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 1:00 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKEmployment Government's Disparate Treatment Claim Over City's Hiring of Bridge Painters Survives Dismissal Bid United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2016, 9:30 pm by RegBlog
Executive Power After United States v. [read post]
23 Nov 2018, 5:31 am
  Moreover, there is already an indication of potential conflict in recent cases filed in the United States in which these issues have been raised (Licea v. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 7:51 am
Arnold District Court Decision:  Recoiling Against Romm           In United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2008, 12:13 am
The United States as intervenor and amicus supports the position of the Holy See with respect to the Holy See's status as a foreign state and the constitutionality of the FSIA. [read post]
8 May 2015, 8:15 am by Don Cruse
SIERRA CLUB, No. 14-0214 Per Curiam JESUS RUBEN MOLINA v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
Rowan, No. 05-30536 On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, a 60-month sentence of supervised release following a conviction for possession of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) defendant's sentence is a non-Guideline sentence since it falls outside the applicable range and was not based on an allowed departure; but 2) in light of the deferential standard set forth in Gall, there was no significant procedural error in the sentencing decision. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 1:25 am by INFORRM
The News Media Association (NMA) and National Union of Journalists issued statements stating that the changes would “weaken the flow of information from police forces to the general public, undermining the public right to know. [read post]
The district court dismissed these claims stating that the alleged taking had not sought compensation in the earlier state court proceedings as required by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. [read post]