Search for: "United States v. Peters" Results 81 - 100 of 1,945
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jan 2014, 9:00 am
Vincent Chetail, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (HEI), has published Vattel and the American Dream: An Inquiry into the Reception of the Law of Nations in the United States  in The Roots of International Law: Liber Amicorum Peter Haggenmacher 251 (V. [read post]
20 Sep 2015, 6:43 pm by Peter Moulinos
Consulate General of Qatar, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 12:26 am by Peter Reap
Scrutinizer GmbH, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, No. 18-1195, 13 September 2018 appeared first on Kluwer Trademark Blog. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 5:30 am by Peter Reap
CQG, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1616, 18 January 2017 appeared first on Kluwer Patent Blog. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 2:27 am by
Joseph Miller, 63, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, Peter Hartofilis, 33, Flushing, New York, Robert Hofler, 52, Pembroke Pines, Florida, and Steve Vento, 41, Jupiter, Florida, are four new defendants that have been added in the case of United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2018, 5:37 pm by Larry
I have spent considerable time trying to summarize United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 10:28 am by Peter Vasilescu
‘[T]he Court sides mainly with Judicial Watch and will order the FBI to conduct a broader search’ (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that United States District Court Judge Christopher R. [read post]
1 Jun 2016, 1:25 am by Peter Reap
SAP America, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 15-20184, 12 May 2016 appeared first on Kluwer Patent Blog. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 2:17 am by Peter Reap
Apple Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2015-2037, 14 April 2017 appeared first on Kluwer Patent Blog. [read post]
21 Jun 2005, 6:27 pm
United States, No. 04-5286 (June 20, 2005) holding that the 1 year limitations period under 2255(3) "begins to run on the date on which this Court 'initially recognized' the right asserted in an applicant's motion, not the date on which that right was made retroactive" Peter Godlberger, through a post at BOPWatch as well as his comment at Sentencing Law and Policy here, has alerted to the importance of Dodd to persons whose sentences became final… [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 11:00 am by Benjamin Wittes
United States, a case pending in the First Circuit that I posted about in December and in an debate last spring with today’s most tireless free speech advocate, David Cole. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 7:23 pm by Steve Vladeck
It’s not just Quirin that makes this position clear; it’s also Dynes v. [read post]