Search for: "United States v. Yang" Results 41 - 60 of 161
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Nov 2013, 8:48 pm by Samuel Bagenstos
Anthony Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, argued for the United States as amicus in support of U.S. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 5:12 pm by Matt Sundquist
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a court can award to a party who prevails in an action against the United States the “fees and other expenses…incurred by”  that party if the position of the United States was not “substantially justified. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 11:25 am by Eric
If SOPA had passed, undoubtedly we would have seen an increase in enforcement actions between two foreign litigants without real ties to the United States. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 3:18 am
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina recently had occasion to apply the test in Power Beverages v. [read post]
5 May 2016, 7:45 am by Laura Donohue
The controversy over the Second Bank of the United States, ostensibly settled in McCullough v. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 5:23 pm by Mike
(U.S. 1940) (so are price-fixing agreements); United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 8:46 am by Christopher Wright
Justice Scalia also led off the questioning of Assistant to the Solicitor General Anthony Yang, representing the United States as an amicus in support of Edwards. [read post]
12 Jan 2020, 2:24 pm by Joel R. Brandes
Michigan, 2020) Petitioner alleged that in January 2019, Respondent wrongfully removed Petitioner and Respondent’s two daughters, ages 9 and 10, from Mexico to the United States The Court ordered that the two children be returned to Mexico.Before January 2019, Petitioner and Respondent lived in Mexico with their two minor children. [read post]
5 May 2008, 1:12 pm
According to the petition, Yang had a “vocal confrontation with . . . officials” at the hospital, but he ultimately “managed to escape” and fled to the United States on a fake passport. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 12:21 pm
`District courts are required to conduct evidentiary hearings only when a substantial claim is presented and there are disputed issues of material fact that will affect the outcome of the motion.' United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 2:07 pm by Jim Rossi
Katyal did not have a clear answer to this question – although Assistant to the Solicitor General Anthony Yang (arguing in support of ONEOK on behalf of the United States) later on maintained that federal antitrust remedies would remain available even if the Court finds field preemption. [read post]