Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
10,000+ results
0.29s
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. 635Reply Brief for Respondent — Di Giovanni v. Camden
Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief for Respondent · 1935
S. 93, 112, 24 8. Ct. 399, 407 ' 7, 87 Keaton vs. Little, 34 Fed. (2d) 396, 398 (C. C. A. r eee ese Kimel vs. Missouri State Life Insurance Company, 71 Fed. (2d) 921, 924 (C. C. … S. 24, 29, 54 S.
296 U.S. 64IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME court eta
Tribal code · Tribal code
MCN RAP 24 (emphasis added). … Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 586-87 (2019) (“Adherence to precedent is ‘a 399 foundation stone of the rule of law’” because it “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles
IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME court eta
Tribal code · Tribal code
MCN RAP 24 (emphasis added). … Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 586-87 (2019) (“Adherence to precedent is ‘a 399 foundation stone of the rule of law’” because it “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles
Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · Apr 25, 2025
Apr. 4, 2025) (D.E. 52). 24 2. … Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 399 (1940).
Petitioners Brief — Scott v. Illinois
Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 1979
New York, 399 U.S, 66, 68°70 (1970). … LR. 929, 950 (1965 (quot a Schneckloth v, RBustamonte, 412 U.S, 218, 242-24!
440 U.S. 367Petition — California v. Ramey
Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1976
Taylor, Two Studies in Constitutional Interpre- tation 23-24 (1969). … Maroney (1970) 399 U.S. 42, 51: ‘‘Carroll [v.
429 U.S. 929Amicus Curiae Brief — Cook v. Gralike
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2001
Martin, 375 U.S. 399 (1964) (striking down on equal protection grounds a Louisiana statute requiring ballots to designate the “race” of the candidates). … Martin, 375 U.S. 399 (1964). 15 of providing ballot information indistinguishable from that being used in the informed voter law.
531 U.S. 510Security Zone; Cruise Ships, Santa Barbara Harbor, Santa Barbara, CA
Federal Register · Rule · Oct 30, 2012
L. 99-399), Congress added section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions, including the establishment of security and safety zones, to … waters from the surface to the sea floor within a 100-yard radius of any cruise ship which is located within 3 nautical miles of the Santa Barbara Harbor Breakwater Light (Light List Number 3750; 34-24
77 FR 65621Homeland Security DepartmentCoast GuardPetition for Writ of Certiorari — United States Gypsum Co. v. Stornelli
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1943
United States Gypsum Co., 123 Fed. 2d. 947, ee eee ery ee ee 24 Homin vs. Cleveland & Whitehill Co., 281 N. Y. 484 .... 20 Kirby vs. Montgomery Brothers & Co., 197 N. Y.27 ..... 17 Leppard vs. … (Chap. 394 L RESCH ORES ee On le RES GE Dp mS EO td 13 Section 122 New York Labor Law of 1897 (Chap. 415 L RU ai ks Cnn sia ake eevee sa bene ues 14 Section 122 New York Labor Law of 1907 (Chap. 399
319 U.S. 760Opposition — Howell v. State Bar of Texas
Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1984
Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 (1981). Howell, 674 F.2d at 1031 n.9. … The district judge recognized in his letter opinion of July 24, 1980, that England did not apply: [The England] Plaintiffs...
466 U.S. 950Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1965
United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957) ........ 24, 29 Naples v. United States, 113 U.S. App. D.C. 281, 307 Fe I 6 eco tb csc ked waweaceek cane ccsae 24 Oakes v. … United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954) .......... 24 Spriggs v. United States, — U.S. App. D.C. —, 335 (fs 4%. Seca er mpm ae 24 Thorington v.
381 U.S. 936Amicus Curiae Brief — Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1970
Rev. 658__-___- 22, 24 Hornstein, New Aspects of Stockholders’ Derivative ey FF GN: Bb. … Supp. 399, 410 (D. Del.), affirmed on other grounds, 159 F. 2d 340 (C.A. 3). Cf. Abrams v. Textile Realty Corp., 97 N.Y.S. 2d 492, 496 (Sup.
396 U.S. 375Petition — Davis v. Pennsylvania
Supreme Court brief · Petition · 1983
Super. 523, 33® A, 24 476 (1975). … Loar, 399 A. 22 1110 (1379), which was decided May 1é, 1979, and would thus have to be applied retroactively. In Commonveaith v.
464 U.S. 848Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1989
Civ.},; “Geed, denied, 399 U.S. 927, 90 S. Ct. 2242, 26 L. Ed. 2d 783 #£4(1970) (emphasis in original). … Box 24 Stewart, Florida 33495-0024 Lyman Reynolds, Attorney P.O.
489 U.S. 1009Respondents Brief — Martin A. Armstrong, Petitioner v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Respondents Brief · Feb 3, 2020
Ct. 399 (2018).......................................... 18 United States v. … Ct. 399, 407 (2018) (this Court is “a court of review, not of first view”); Clingman v.
Reply Brief — Timothy J. Smith, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · Mar 17, 2023
Gov’t Br. 24. … Id. at 11; see also id. at 22, 24, 35.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Jan 31, 2022
Jan. 24, 2022). The recent decision by the three-judge U.S. … Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) and Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455 (2017). A.
Reply Brief — Louisiana, Appellant v. Phillip Callais, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · Feb 20, 2025
Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) ........................ 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 iv Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879 (2022) .......................................... 1, 13 Miller v. … Op.Br.24 (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 755 (1984)).
Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Air Courier Conference of America v. American Postal Workers Union
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · 1991
P. 399. … P. 399. (emphasis added).
498 U.S. 517
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.