Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
10,000+ results
0.12s
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Apr 6, 2026
Cir. 2002). ............5 In re Gibbs, 437 F.2d 486 (CCPA 1971)....................10 In re Henriksen, 399 F.2d 253 (CCPA 1968) ............20 In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595 (CCPA 1977) ..................12 … Kenyon Bearing & AP Co., 153 F. 2d 516 (2nd Cir. 1946) ......... 9, 24 iii Raleigh & Gaston R. Co. v.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Doe I, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Mar 27, 2026
Rec. 6670 (Mar. 24, 1987) (statement by Sen. … Rev. 399, 407 (2010). Clear statement rules come with a cost – often described as a “clarity tax.” E.g., Biden v.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Deandre Blackman, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Jul 29, 2025
But it 3 No. 24-5517, United States v. … Guthrie, 4 No. 24-5517, United States v.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mendez v. United States (No. 07-629)
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2007
Rosnow, 977 F.2d 399, 405 (8th Cir. 1992)). 3. … Id. at 24, 54-55. A search of the Jetta produced two duffle bags contain- ing men’s clothing and toiletries. Id. at 24.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Carpenter v. Murphy, 139 S. Ct. 626 (2018) (No. 17-1107)
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2018
Bd. of Comm’rs of Muskogee Cty., 248 U.S. 399, 404 (1919); Bartlett v. … United States, 24 Ind. Cl.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Badger Mutual Insurance v. Serio
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1959
Scale Co., 261 US 399. 67 L: Ed. 719; Greenspahn v. … _ Computing Scale Co., 261°U.S. 399, 67 L.
361 U.S. 832Opposition Brief — AT&T Corp. v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co.
Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 2000
Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 591 | | ce SUSE ee ee 21-22, 24, 25-26 GTE South, Inc. v. Morrison, 6 F. Supp. 2d 517 (E.D. … App. 50a- dla (quoting Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. at 399): see also Edye v. Robertson (Head Money Cases), 112 U.S. 580, 596 (1884).
530 U.S. 1223Amicus Curiae Brief — Texas v. McCullough
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1986
.-0-------- 24 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 .................... passim Ohio v. Johnson, No. 83-904 (June 11, 1984)........ 20 Patton v. … United States, No. 83-173 (July 3, TD -iclistitentsincittiniavediiagabiaitsiel 2, 11, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 Williams V. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 -........................... 17 Williams v.
475 U.S. 134Agency decision · Agency decision
Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 399 (1984); Scully v. Commissioner, T.C. … Commissioner, 464 U.S. at 399; Scully v. Commissioner, at *2.
United States Tax CourtOpposition Brief — Johnson v. Rineck
Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1991
State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 555 P.2d 399 (1976), cert. denied 431 U.S. 914 (1977). ‘8 Duren v. Suburban Community Hospital, 24 Ohio Misc.2d 25, 495 N.E.2d 51 (C.P. … State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 555 P.2d 399 (1976). cert denied 431 U.S. 914 (1977); Fein v. Permanente Medical Group, 38 Cal.3d 137,211 Cal.
498 U.S. 1068Reply Brief — Passarella v. North Carolina
Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1975
Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419, 90 S. Ct. 1975 (1970); and United States v. Bradshaw, 490 F. 2d 1097 (4th Cir. 1974). … Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 26 L. Ed 2d 419, 90 S. Ct. 1975 (1970) Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 3 L. Ed. 327, 79 S. Ct. 329 (1959) Gilliam v.
423 U.S. 831Brief for the United States — United States v. Arthur Young & Co.
Supreme Court brief · Brief for the United States · 1984
United States, 449 U.S. 383, 397-399 (1981). … DCL Inc., 399 F. Supp. 1123 ‘(S.D.N.Y. 1973).
465 U.S. 805Jurisdictional Statement — Nader v. Schaffer
Supreme Court brief · Jurisdictional Statement · 1976
City of Montgomery, 417 U.S. 556 (1974) . 14, 24 9, 18, 21, 22, 24 18, 24 9, 18 18 11, 23 9, 11, 17, 21 . 8, 10, 17, 20, 22, 24 23 (iii) Page Gray v. … Dec. at App. 24.)
429 U.S. 989Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · Jun 2, 2026
Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) ........................................ 24, 29 Rumsfeld v. … APPENDIX i TABLE OF APPENDICES Page A PPENDIX A — EXCERPTS FROM REMEDIAL HEARING TRANSCRIPT, 3/8/24 . . . . . 1a APPENDIX B — EX. 399 (TEXT THREAD WITH PAUL GRAVES, BENANCIO GARCIA, AND MAIA ESPINOZA,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kirk v. Louisiana
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 2002
Vale, 399 U.S. at 35; State v. Hathaway, 411 So.2d 1074, 1079 (La. 1982); Welch, 449 So.2d at 470. … Vale, 399 U.S.at 34; State v. Thompson 466 So.2d 39 (La. 1985), on remand Thompson v.
536 U.S. 635Respondents Brief — Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley
Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 2002
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 399 (1987); see also Great Northern Ry. Co. v. … Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 399; see also Great Northern R. Co. v.
536 U.S. 987Appendices — Firestone v. Southern California Gas Co.
Supreme Court brief · Appendices · 2002
Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 409-13 (1988)). … Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. (1988) 486 U.S. 399, 403.)
536 U.S. 958Respondents Brief — Noyd v. Bond
Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · 1969
On December 24, 1968, Mr. … CM.R. 399. And more recently, in United States v.
395 U.S. 683Federal Register · Notice · Apr 13, 2005
Dislodgeable residues of 2,4-D taken during exposure sessions showed a rapid decline from 1 hour following application (8%) to 24 hours following applications (1%). … For the U.S. population, the acute dietary MOE is 321 and it is 399 for females 13+ years. These figures do not exceed EPA's level of concern for acute dietary exposure.
70 FR 19442Environmental Protection AgencyOpposition — Missouri v. Crews
Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1981
Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970). Eastlake v. Forrest City Enterprises, Inc., 426 U.S. 668 (1976). Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Assn., 242 U.S. 430 (1917). Garner v. … Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970). As was stated in Memorial Hospital v.
452 U.S. 957
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.