Search for: "United States v. Walker" Results 141 - 160 of 839
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2007, 1:06 pm
That case was pulled and United States v. [read post]
And if a judge’s personal characteristics were relevant, why shouldn’t the six current United States Supreme Court justices who are Catholics be excluded from ruling on a case about the religious freedom of Catholics? [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 6:40 am
The third case in the trilogy of securities antitrust immunity, United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 9:00 am by Dennis Crouch
The 11th Amendment has been seen as quite strong — preventing the Federal Courts from hearing “any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 1:33 pm by Mark Giangrande
  The most controversial is the Texas specialty license plate case, Walker v. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 5:30 am by Elizabeth Howell
In 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States limited third-party (often grandparent) visitation rights in Troxel v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:26 pm
United States Dept. of Interior, 982 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir.1992). [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 8:00 am by Dan Ernst
FailingerDenying the Poor Access to Court: United States v. [read post]
18 Jan 2014, 7:59 am
United States is a federal case that involves admissibility of evidence but is adopted by numerous states nationwide. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 9:46 am by Daniel West, Olswang LLP
It is however an established principle of Strasbourg jurisprudence that such a right does not extend so far as to impose a positive obligation on public authorities to disclose or distribute information (see Leander v Sweden (1987) 9 EHRR 433 or Roche v United Kingdom (2005) 42 EHRR 599). [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 12:33 pm by Christopher Brown, Matrix.
As to this latter question, the Court’s answer was “yes”, Lord Walker dissenting. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 6:53 am by Richard Montes
United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC 1923)—or the foundation rule set by the state Court of Appeals in Parker v. [read post]
28 May 2012, 11:38 am by Poppy Weston-Davies, Olswang LLP
The Respondents, who were appointed as receivers of TCT by the High Court of England and Wales, caused TCT to present a voluntary petition for relief in New York under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and TCT was placed into insolvency proceedings in New York on the basis that (i) nearly all of TCT’s 60,000 creditors were located in Canada or the US; and (ii) TCT as a trust was treated as a separate legal entity under US law.   [read post]