Search for: "United States v. Paul" Results 521 - 540 of 3,742
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2012, 11:42 am by Lyle Denniston
United States (docket 11-182), the state’s tough new immigrant control law will be defended by Paul D. [read post]
11 Sep 2008, 2:07 am
by Paul Bland The United States Justice Department has completely disgraced itself. [read post]
8 Apr 2023, 6:13 am by Just Security
Expert Q&A from Stockton Center’s Russia-Ukraine Conference by Jenny Maddocks The United States’ Proposal on Prosecuting Russians for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine is a Step in the Right Direction by Michael Scharf, Paul R. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 10:40 am by Patricia Salkin
Paul, Minnesota, alleging violations of its rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), as well as its rights under the constitutions of Minnesota and the United States, including the First Amendment. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 6:27 am by Edith Roberts
United States, in which the Court will decide “under what circumstances can the government retry for the underlying crime” “when a defendant is validly acquitted for a crime that involves another crime,”noting that “double jeopardy cases try to make sense out of the jury system—which often makes no sense. [read post]
2 Oct 2016, 12:49 pm by Howard Friedman
Nichols & John Witte, Religious Law and Religious Courts as a Challenge to the State (National Report for United States of America), (Religious Law and Religious Courts as a Challenge to the State: Legal Pluralism from a Comparative Perspective, Ed. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 10:24 am by Florian Mueller
The Recorder also says she has a key role but mentions (in the first place) Peter Bicks, a commercial litigation attorney who has apparently had spectacular successes at jury trials in many different parts of the United States. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 6:09 am by 1 Crown Office Row
Paul Harvey is a UK lawyer in the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights. [read post]
27 Oct 2018, 7:52 am by INFORRM
  In A v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that ‘the broader an [MP’s] immunity, the more compelling must be its justification in order that it can be said to be compatible with the Convention’ ([78]). [read post]