Search for: "United States v. Stage Co" Results 161 - 180 of 1,070
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2010, 9:50 am by Berne C. Hart
Supreme Court under that Court’s Rule 10, where “a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter.” [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
”  A state legislature’s constitutional inability to favor particular federal legislative candidates and disfavor others explains why the Supreme Court held a dozen years ago in Cook v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 5:30 am by Ben Cheng
Washington State Democratic Central Committee v. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 5:30 am by Andrew Frisch
United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others). [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 11:20 am by Wells C. Bennett
Judge Walton, Sullivan says, also never found that the petitioner raised a finger against the United States or its allies. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 8:14 am by Jason Rantanen
United States, 816 F. 2d 647, 656 (1987) (stating the on-sale bar “does not lend itself to formulation into a set of precise requirements”). [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 5:53 am by Guest
The High Court rejected this contention, and ruled that Kvaerner had been implicitly overruled by SBP & Co. v Patel Engineering (‘SBP’). [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 12:32 pm by Conor McEvily
United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceDocket: 10-605Issue(s): Whether, under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, the government must analyze all of the economic impacts of a “critical habitat” designation (regardless of whether the impacts are co-extensive with, or cumulative of, other causes), or instead only those impacts for which “critical habitat” designation is a “but for” cause.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (9th Circuit)Petition… [read post]
25 May 2010, 4:58 am by Bexis
American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), a 5-4 case concerning preemption of "no-airbag" claims, and more generally implied preemption, in the wake of the Levine case.The Court also invited the SG to "express the view of the United States" in the Mensing case (Supreme Court Nos. 09-993, 09-1039.  [read post]