Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
10,000+ results
2.41s
Respondents Brief — Day v. McDonough
Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 2006
June 24, 2005) (No. 05-3); Hill v. … J.A. 24 (emphasis added).
547 U.S. 198Jurisdictional Statement — Flannery v. City of Norfolk
Supreme Court brief · Jurisdictional Statement · 1976
Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399(1966) .......... 2,8 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ....... 7 Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969) .............. 8 Harris v. … Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (1966); Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961).
424 U.S. 936Motion — Schaefer v. State Administrative Board of Election Laws
Supreme Court brief · Motion · 1988
Tucker, supra, 399 F.Supp. at 1262, n. 4. … Libertarian Party, 591 F.2d 22, 24-25 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 442 U.S. 918 (1979).
484 U.S. 1053Amicus Brief — Gerstein v. Pugh
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Brief · 1975
Dwyer, 143 Iowa 502 (1909) 24 Ocampo v. United States, 234 U.S. 91 (1914) 22 People ex rel. Lyman v. Smith, 352 III. 496 (1933) 24 People v. Stockwell, 135 Mich. 341 (1904) 24 Perez v. … Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 23-24 (1969) : Constitutional interpretation is not an easy mat- ter, but we should be especially cautious about sub- * See In re Rule 3: 131(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure
420 U.S. 103Opposition — Mount Wilson F. M. Broadcasters, Inc. v. Fox
Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1977
Wilson (1898) 120 Cal. 643, 53 Pac. 24 ee ee ee ge eee New Haven Inclusion Cases (1970) 399 U.S. 392, 26 L.Ed.2d 691, 90 S.Ct. 2054 00. Shepherd v. … (New Haven Inclusion Cases (1970) 399 U.S. 392, 450, fn. 66, 26 L.Ed.2d 691, 90 S.Ct. 2054.)’
434 U.S. 826Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Dossett v. Georgia
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1992
App. 746, 399 S.E.2d 554 SUP RS sca Choe a es eee a eras 5 Dossett v. State, 197 Ga. App. 139, 398 S.E.2d 24...... 2 Dossett v. State, 261 Ga. 362, __—« S.E.2d ___ (1991)..... 2 Fortson v. … State, 197 Ga. 139(2) (398 SE2d 24) (1990).
502 U.S. 1057Reply Brief — Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 2002
Op. 20-21, 24-25. … YALOWITZ 399 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Attorneys for Petitioner, Sacramento Municipal Utility District
535 U.S. 1095Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Aug 8, 2023
Salim, 399 Mass. 227, 239 (1987). … Aug. 24, 2016). Cf, e.g., Jahagirdar v. United States, No. 07-CV-10923-MLW, 2010 WL 2595564, at *3 (D. Mass. June 24, 2010) (under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)).
Reply Brief Petitioner — Illinois ex rel. Woods v. Tuohy
Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief Petitioner · 1950
Keeney, 399 Ill. 611........ 15 People ex rel. Mike Magloie v. Joseph Siman, 284 Il. 28 17 People ex rel. Modern Woodmen of America v. … Keeney, 399 Mil. 611.
340 U.S. 830Petitioners Brief — Porter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (No. 604)
Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 1961
D.C. 308 ~ 6,8 Bellair Estate (1937), 293 N.Y.S. 31 2000000000000... 15 Buxtons Estate, 1944, 16 N.W. 2d 399, 246 Wis. … Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763, 24 L.
Respondents Brief — Manhattan Properties, Inc. v. Irving Trust Co.
Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 1934
S. 399, 57 L. Ed. 273; Oakes v. Lake, 78 L. Ed. 15 (Adv. Op.) (Nov. 6, 1933). … S. 399, 57 L. Ed. 273. Neither the reason for the rule of Booth v.
291 U.S. 320Opposition — DiPalermo v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1980
Green, 399 U.S. 149 oo. 11 Cronnon v. Alabama, 587 F. 2d 246, cert. Gemied, 440 U.S. 974 .o.sii....cccccccssssssccnccoccsscseneee 7 Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 ......... Mattox y. … Green, 399 U.S. 149, 165-168 (1970).
445 U.S. 915Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · Mar 12, 2019
Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970) ......................... 6 DOCKETED CASES ODonnell v. … Oct. 24, 2018). And as explained, Fifth Circuit precedent is clear that when two panel decisions conflict, the prior one controls.
Petitioners Reply Brief — United States v. Nobles
Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Reply Brief · 1975
Nixon, No. 73-1766, de- cided July 24, 1974, slip op. 24. … Florida, 399 U.S. 78.
422 U.S. 225Petition — Gonzales v. Fairfax-Brewster School, Inc.
Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1978
Standard Oil Co., 399 U.S. 222 (1970) Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222 (1833) Simpson v. Weeks, 570 F.2d 240 (C.A. 8, 1978) . Sprague v. … Standard Oil Co., 399 U.S. 222 (1970)) this Court has decided virtually the identical issue that is involved here.
439 U.S. 927Amicus Curiae Brief — Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 137 S. Ct. 30 (2016) (No. 15-1391)
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2016
LAW § 399-zzz (McKinney 2016)............... 18 NYLS’ Governor’s Bill Jacket to ch. 160, S. 8367, Assemb. Sey G0 te iv Other Authorities Adam J. Levitin, Priceless? … The constitutionality of section 399-zzz has never been challenged. Any such challenge would surely fail, because it is a valid regulation of economic conduct. .
Amicus Curiae Brief — 303 Creative LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Aubrey Elenis, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jun 2, 2022
Cohen, 402 U.S., at 24. … Id., at 24.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Louisiana, Appellant v. Phillip Callais, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Sep 3, 2025
Nos. 24-109, 24-110 IN THE LOUISIANA, v. Appellant, PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL., Appellees. PRESS ROBINSON, ET AL., Appellants, v. PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL., Appellees. … See id. at 23–24.
Respondents Brief — Tull v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 1987
The remedy created by the Clean Water Act is equitable 24 C. … Kansas, 123 U.S 23 11, 20, — 23, 24, 37 O’Connor v. Cook, 6 Ves. ton 665, aff’d, 8 Ves. Jun. 536 " ST FT eR ene 23 Parklane Hosiery Co." V. Shove. 439 U.S. 399 15 16. 10, 42 Parsons V.
481 U.S. 412Petitioners Brief — Watts v. Tennessee
Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 1972
Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970), recognized the safeguards of having the declarant at trial. … Green, 399 U.S. at 176 (Harlan, J., concurring).
405 U.S. 1043
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.