Search for: "United States v. Nichols" Results 121 - 140 of 274
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Oct 2015, 8:00 pm by John Ehrett
United States 14-1535Issue: (1) Whether prosecutors are permitted to withhold materials covered by Brady v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 7:34 am by Steven Eversole
However, the United States government and the government in the state of South Carolina are separate sovereigns with independent power and authorities to prosecute offenders. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 6:34 am by Alex Bailin QC, Matrix
He considered (applying PG v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 51) that REP was a significant but not necessarily conclusive factor in deciding whether Article 8 was engaged. [read post]
3 Jul 2015, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
He considered (applying PG v  United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 51) that REP was a significant but not necessarily conclusive factor in deciding whether Article 8 was engaged. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 5:17 am by Terry Hart
Before there was a Bill of Rights, the United States had copyright. [read post]
31 May 2015, 3:47 am
 The Innovation Protection Act - which concerns funding of the United Stated Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).The pace of reform happening in the US is quite astounding and impressive. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 5:46 am by Ben
"Judge Learned Hand United States Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitInspiration or appropriation? [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 3:14 am by Broc Romanek
In the announcement, CalPERS states it has sent proxy access shareholder proposals to 33 energy companies as a way to push this climate change agenda. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 11:45 am by Jim Gerl
Seal of the United States Department of Justice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)The U.S. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 6:22 pm by Lauren Kuley
  A seemingly conflicting decision from the Eighth Circuit, United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 9:59 am by Jon Sands
  The panel reiterated that it was bound by United States v. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 9:45 am by Joel R. Brandes
Nichols, 938 F.Supp. 737, 739 (D.Kan.1996) (reducing award by 15% in light of respondent's financial condition and because awarding full fee would unduly limit respondent's ability to support his children);  Rydder v. [read post]