Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
10,000+ results
0.20s
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1995
Delta Air Lines, Inc., 468 U.S. 85 (1988) .. 12, 15, 16 STATUTES ae 8 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) ................ ncttcipeitinamatiatiaa initiates 8 EE stentiiaibtiaiiaal passim 29 U.S.C. § 1144(B) (3B) … See also Senator Javits’ comment, in a colloquy not quoted in Shaw, that with respect to plans providing prepaid legal services “it is intended that State regulation—but not bar association ethical
514 U.S. 645Amicus Curiae Brief — Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 360 (2018) (No. 17-1702)
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2018
Similarly, MNN is not “free to define” what content to air on its public access channels. … See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c).6 ® Lower courts have considered whether public officials who block individuals from commenting on their social media pages violate the First Amendment.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Dec 8, 2020
Constitution requires Congress to set a specific date for voting in a Presidential election, and because Congress has set that specific date, Respondents’ attempts to allow mail-in voting for a long period … veteran who has served as an Etowah County (AL) Circuit Judge, has twice been elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and is a member of the Bar of this Court; • John Eidsmoe, a retired Air
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Dec 8, 2020
Constitution requires Congress to set a specific date for voting in a Presidential election, and because Congress has set that specific date, Respondents’ attempts to allow mail-in voting for a long period … veteran who has served as an Etowah County (AL) Circuit Judge, has twice been elected Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and is a member of the Bar of this Court; • John Eidsmoe, a retired Air
Amicus Curiae Brief — Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., aka Halkbank, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Nov 21, 2022
During this period, courts welcomed the executive’s views on immunity via filings called “suggestions of immunity.” … That is true for myriad reasons, as shown by the brief period when courts deferred to executive immunity decisions.
Amicus Curiae Brief — National Rifle Association of America, Petitioner v. Maria T. Vullo
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Nov 19, 2025
It was first passed by the Reconstruction Congress as part of the Ku Klux Klan Act, itself part of the “Enforcement Acts” designed to combat civil rights violations in southern states. … Berry, Pam Bondi Had to Walk Back Her ‘Hate Speech’ Comments—for Good Reason, CATO INST. (Sept. 17, 2025), https://tinyurl.com/4u26485s.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1987
Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) ; Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504 (1981). … Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. at 105.
481 U.S. 41Amicus Curiae Brief — Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 44 (2014) (No. 14-15)
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2014
Jd. at 506 n.3 (quoting 2 Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 907, Comment a, p. 395 (1986)). … Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1978); Ray v. Atl Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151 (1978); Pharm. Research & Mfg. of Am v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644 (2003).
Amicus Curiae Brief — Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1990
Thus, in rejecting a rule that would compel broadcasters to air paid messages, the Court in CBS:v. … Comments, Special Forum on Proposed Reforms in Campaign Financing, 3 J.L. & Pol. 419, 500 (1986).
494 U.S. 652Amicus Curiae Brief — KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2004
Phillips Mercantile Co., 523 F.2d 424 (10th Cir. 1975) 7 Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc. v. … , or the Act of February 20, 1905, upon the filing of the required affidavit with the Director within one year after the expiration of any period of five consecutive years after the date of publication
543 U.S. 111Amicus Curiae Brief — Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2008
more questions may remain for the postmarket period, Institute of Medicine. Sufe Medical Devices for Children 184 (Marilyn J. … With the FDA overseeing the recall, Sulzer “took some of the unimplanted recalled shells, cleaned them to remove the problem residue and sent them out to be implanted by orthopedists into patients.”
552 U.S. 312Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Aug 15, 2022
And during this period, states enacted detailed regulations governing local sales of food, regardless of whether the food was imported or locally produced. … They breathe over and over again the same air, tainted with the exhalations of their own fevered bodies, and of the unutterable slimy filth voided from their diseased and ulcerated intestines.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al., Petitioners v. Texas, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Dec 9, 2024
Shortly after, the Commission started the public engagement process needed to develop an environmental impact statement, soliciting comments and holding public meetings. See, e.g., 83 Fed. … Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. 79 (2017) (cleaned up)). The textual difference between these two provisions is easily explained.
Amicus Curiae Brief — Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1989
FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976 28 U.S.C. § 1605. … On June 8, 1982, on the high seas and without warning, Argentine government air forces made three separate bom- 9 bing sorties against the HERCULES between 1350 and 1625 G.M.T., damaging her severely
488 U.S. 428Amicus Curiae Brief — Chicago v. Morales
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1999
U.S. 29-30 n.20) likewise deserves little comment. … This Court expressly hel¢ that “[t}he qualification ‘without any lawful purpose or object’ may be a trap for innocent acts.” 405 U.S. at 164.
527 U.S. 41Amicus Curiae Brief — Kelo v. New London
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2005
constitutional); Hayes, * See also 2A NICHOLS ON EMINENT DOMAIN § 7.06[27] n. 25 and 26 (2004) (listing the following states as finding that non-blighted proper- ties may be taken to prevent slums and clean … The court explained, “[the statute of limitations] cannot be used to immunize an agency which adopts a redevelop- ment plan legal on its face, then after the 60-day period has elapsed deviates from
545 U.S. 469Amicus Curiae Brief — Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido, 138 S. Ct. 1165 (2018) (No. 17-587)
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2018
Atonio, Ss inincisderdahncsieestekisiisiapiintinintipiais 26 ix Western Air Lines, Inc. v. … Thurston, 469 U.S. at 121; Reeves, 530 U.S. at 140-41; see also Western Air Lines, Inc. v.
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 2017
Congress explicitly endorsed this case law in the 1952 Patent Act in codifying the Segal definition of patents as “property” in 35 U.S.C. § 261. … United States, 481 U.S. 412, 425-427 (1986) (addressing procedural rights within the administrative regime created by the Clean Water Act of 1972).
Amicus Curiae Brief — American Hospital Assn. v. NLRB
Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · 1991
Member facilities range in size from the 15-bed 379th Strategic Hospital at the Wurtsmith Air Force Base to the 960-bed Henry Ford Hospital in downtown Detroit. … The quoted comment concerning the Act’s “in each case” requiremeni does not appear in Davis’ subsequent treatises, which more broadly discuss the Board's rulemaking power.
499 U.S. 606Supreme Court brief · Amicus Curiae Brief · Feb 24, 2025
United Mine Workers of America (“UMWA”), Comments on Proposed Rule Regarding Black Lung Benefits Act: Authorization of Self-Insurers, at 1 (Apr. 19, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/WCPO-20230001 … -0011 (“UMWA Comments”).
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.