Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
3,958 results
0.39s
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1962
Supp. 417, 423 (Uc. D.C., 1955). Vn fund be in writing and vet to permit an employer to eleim the **sham"’ exception to the parol evidences rule. … Co., 363 U.S. 574, 578 (1960) (Douglas, J.). 10UTnited Steelworkers v. American Mfa. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 570 (1960) (Brennan, J., concurring).
368 U.S. 977Appendix — Curtis v. Napolitano (No. 08-1570)
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2009
Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). … University HealthCare Sys., LLC, 482 F.3d 802, 806 (5th Cir.2007).
Appendix — Chalk v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1941
(b) The Act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat., Ch. 423, p. 1074, at 1095, now U. S. … (c) The Act of March 4, 1907, 34 Stat., Ch. 2907, p. 1256, at p. 1269, now U.S.
312 U.S. 679Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1960
Denver: Building and Construction Trades Council, 192 F, 2d 421, 423-424 (C. … A. 5), cert. den. 450 U.S. O14).
Appendix — California v. Acevedo
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1991
(Id., at pp. 482-483.) … United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 356-357; see also Lorenzana v.
500 U.S. 565Appendix — Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1983
Hope Natural Gas Co,, 320 U.S. 591 (1944). … U.S. v. Storer Broadcasting Company, 351 U.S. 192 (1956). The parties share different views on the technique to be used to compute the interest expense deduction.
464 U.S. 802Appendix — Moore v. East Cleveland
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1977
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1972). … Tucker (1960), 364 U.S. 479, 489; NAACP vy. Button (1963), 371 U.S. 415, 423; NAACP v. Alabama (1964), 377 U.S. 288, 307- 308.?
431 U.S. 494Appendix — Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1975
Merrigan: As a result of our conversation and the concern I have for the proper resolution of the freight rate and NEPA issues in U.S. vy. … Lynn, 482 F.2d 1282, 1285 (1st Cir., 1973). Sincerely, /8/ Rosert V. Zener Robert V. Zener General Counsel
422 U.S. 289Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1985
denied, 423 U.S. 1025 (1975). 18 The jurisdictional reach of the Sherman Act “extends to both activities that are actually in interstate commerce and to activities that, though purely intrastate in … No. 187, 86th Cong., Ist Sess. 27, (1959) U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 2318, 2344; I Legislative History of the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 423.
474 U.S. 898Appendix — Noble v. Oklahoma City
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1936
A right-of-way under this act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 482), was involved in the case of Mary G. Arnett (20 L. … Stringham, decided November 1, 1915 (239 U.S, 44), a conflict between the right-of-way under the act of March 3, 1875, and a placer patent was involved.
297 U.S. 481Appendix — Taylor v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1972
. 333 (1970). 5380 U.S. 163 (1965). 6Cf. … Welch, 398 U.S. 333 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965). 17See McGee v. United States, __ U.S. —— (No. 362, May 17, 1971). A-7 his post-induction letter.
404 U.S. 1024Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2010
Cir. 1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64 (1987). FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 09-5249 September Term 2009 Pursuant to D.C. … Cir, 2007) (quoting Greenhill v, Spellings, 482 F.3d 569, 572 (D.C. Cir. 2007»).
562 U.S. 890Appendix — Arizona v. Fulminante
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1991
Arizona, U.S. ____ 1108 S. Ct. 207 (1987); State v. Bracy, 145 Ariz. 520, 538, 703 P.2d 464, 482 (1985), cert. denied, Bracy v. Arizona, 474 U.S. 1110, 106 S. Ct. 898 (1986). … Kelly, 808 F.2d 214, 218 (2d Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 482 U.S. 928, 107 S.
499 U.S. 279Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2006
Marvel, 423 A.2d 196, 198 (D.C. App. 1980). … Page, 808 F.2d 723, 727 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 918 (1987). l6la tors prosecuted him out of malice or “bad faith.”
547 U.S. 250Appendix — City of Louisville v. Glasson
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1975
Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966), in public libraries, see Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966), and near courthouses, Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965). … Ross, 482 F. 2d 33, 37 (6th Cir. 1973). Accord, e.g., Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 119 (1969) (Black, J. concurring) and cases cited therein.® *In Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.
423 U.S. 930Appendix — Gulf States Util. Co. v. FPC
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1973
N.L.R.B., 423 F.2d 625, 626 (C.A. 2 1970); Wellington Mills Division, West Point Mfg. Co. v. … California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957). wn governing discretion.
411 U.S. 747Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1979
Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (1977): Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346 (1970). … Texas, 347 U.S., at 482. . . .
443 U.S. 545Appendix — Culuton v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 2004
Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 486 n.3, 137 L.Ed.2d 107, 117 S. Ct. 921 (1997). … Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 486 n.3, 137 L. Ed. 2d 107, 117 S. Ct. 921 (1997). It is for the jury to decide in such cases which construction the defendant placed on a question. See United States v.
540 U.S. 1111Appendix — City of Highland Park v. Train
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1976
U.S. —.. 95 &.Ct. 517 (1974); and Anaconda Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 482 F.2d 1301, 1304 (10th Cir. 1973). … Ruckelshaus, 482 F.2d 1301, 1305 (10th Cir. 1973), 482 F.2d 1301, 1305 (10th Cir. 1973), with Pinkney v. Ohio Env. Prot. Ag., 375 F.Supp. 305 (N.D.Ohio, 1974). Pinkney is the only case on point.
424 U.S. 927Appendix — MICHAEL O. MYERS v. UNITED STATES (Nos. 82-1255, 82-1183, 82-1187, 82-1199, 82-1240)
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1983
United States, supra, 287 U.S. at 441, 53 S. Ct. at 212, or engage in "deceit." United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 435-36, 93 S. Ct. 1637, 1644-45, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973). … Johnson, 419 F.2d 56 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1010, 90 S. Ct. 1235, 25 L.Ed.2d 423 (1970).
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.