Search for: "United States v. R. L. C"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,668
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2024, 11:27 am
First, paraquat is closely regulated for agricultural use in the United States. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
Those third parties included Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), the Blockchain Association, Katie Cox and Professors Peter Conti-Brown, Morgan Ricks,3Julie Andersen Hill and David Zaring.4 In his amicus brief, former Senator Toomey stated that the purpose for his amendment requiring the Federal Reserve Board to maintain a database was to increase the transparency and public accountability of the Federal Reserve Banks’ master account… [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 2:56 pm
Proc. 97-35, and cases like RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 10:08 am
As a practical matter, the burden shifts to the party that wishes to challenge the relied upon facts and data to learn more about the cited studies to show that the facts and data are not sufficient under Rule 702(b), and that the testimony is not the product of reliable methods under Rule 702(c). [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 6:05 am
” While the Second Circuit noted in its decision in U.S. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:33 pm
28; R. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 1:28 pm
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 12. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 5:58 am
Carême v. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 2:40 pm
’” Norfolk Southern R. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 7:15 pm
Alessandro Maurini, The Missed Revolution at the Origins of the United States (2022). 6. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 3:48 pm
United States, the protester challenged the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) code designation chosen by the agency and affirmed by the SBA Office of Hearing and Appeals (“OHA”).[2]The Court agreed with the protester that the NAICS code for environmental consulting services, rather than the NAICS code for research and development (“R&D”), was not the best choice. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 5:57 am
Jeffery-Poulter, p. 148 – 150. [4] Dudgeon v the United Kingdom App no 7525/76 (ECtHR, 22 October 1981). [5] United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. [6] CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1 2018 – paras. 83 – 85. [7] [2018] UKSC 27. [8] The Abortion Act 1967: a biography of a UK law, S. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 7:08 pm
§ l 56(c)(4) and 37 C.F.R. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 10:30 am
& C. 4th 251, 257 (2003), or that the TV program Born Innocent led some underage viewers to sexually attack a small child in copying a scene shown on the program, Olivia N. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:15 pm
Reilly, 2021 SCC 38, at para. 3; see also R. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 9:03 am
R.4(h) provides the additional guidance that a company can be served “at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i). [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 7:07 am
Mehta and Kaitlyn Box have thoughts: "The Supreme Court on January 17, 2024 heard arguments in two cases – R elentless, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 2:29 pm
(Marko Milanovic, ICJ Indicates Provisional Measures in South Africa v. [read post]
