Documents
Briefs, oral arguments, agency decisions and the Federal Register.
10,000+ results
1.34s
Opposition Brief — Seaboard System Railroad v. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1985
The filing of the Brotherhood’s enforcement petition was a result of the failure of the carrier to comply with the terms of the Award issued by the Board on January 24, 1978, and the Interpretation … Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 93, 99 S.Ct. 399, 401, 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978) (narrow scope of review applies to both questions of fact and questions of law).
469 U.S. 1213Appendix — Noble v. Oklahoma City
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1936
D., 399), the. practice as indicated and the distinction between rights-of-way under general and special acts was preserved and reannounced. … It will be borne in mind that the excepting or reservation dause involved ‘was not an exclusion or elimination of an arce of land but was a clause stating that the patent or con- 24 ’_.
297 U.S. 481Opposition Brief — May v. Shuttle, Inc.
Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1998
RIL E D > wae 24 996 No. 97-1674 i ice : IN THE Supreme Court of the Untied States OcTOBER TERM, 1997 JAMES May, et ai., = Petitioners, SHUTTLE, INC., et al., Respondents. … Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 409 n.8 (1988).
524 U.S. 927Prologue — Uberoi v. City of Boulder
Supreme Court brief · Prologue · 2005
Stricland, 792 F.24 1069 (11"™ Cir. 1986)......... 13 Scot v. United States, 559 A.2d 745 (D.C. App. 1989)...... 11 Smith v. Sikorsky Aircraft, 420 F. … Computing Scale Co., 261 U.S. 399, 418 NGF hncsccticcnoveddevicicsesdinahintiabh dete piteetntger tceons + United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 Pe a ac ne de 10 United States v.
546 U.S. 874Brief for the Respondent in Opposition — Gilbert v. Commissioner
Supreme Court brief · Brief for the Respondent in Opposition · 1959
The first opinion of he court of appeals (Pet. 34-54). is reported at 248 . 2d 399. ThéWecision of the Tax Court on remand (Pet. 55-58) is not reported.) … treasurer and a director (Pet. 24-25). .
359 U.S. 1002Petitioners Brief — Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Thompson
Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 1943
that the right of appeal is made to depend upon whether an issue presented for decision is determined affirmatively or negatively, We cannot think Congress intended to cut so fine” (95 F. (2d) 397, 399 … A. 2, 1903) ; In re Chakos, 24 F. (2d) 482 (C. C. A. 7, 1928). ern Pacific R. R. Co., supra, those decisions only increase the confusion and emphasize the conflict between the Cir.
320 U.S. 785Opposition — Cougar Business Owners Ass'n v. Washington
Supreme Court brief · Opposition · 1982
State, 97 un. 2d 466, 5p. 24 (1982), 822 Petition for Certiorari, Appendix A. At the time of the challenged decisions the nature and extent of the threat posed by Mt. St. … Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 399-400 (1932): By virtue of his duty to "cause the laws to de faithfully executed," the Executive is appropriately . * .
459 U.S. 971Opposition Brief — West Michigan Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission
Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · 1985
broadcast record, efficient use of the frequency and character, may also play a role in determining which applicant will provide the best practicable service. 1965 Policy Statement, | F.C.C. 2d at 397-399 … Waters is also entitled to a substantial enhancement for its 100% minority and female owner- ship integrated with full-time management, while West Michigan’s enhancement for 24% temale ownership integrated
470 U.S. 1027Reply Brief — Silver v. Farmers & Merchants Insurance
Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1989
denied, 102 S.Ct. 2294, 456 U.S. 1005, 73 L.Ed.2d {399, reversed, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 461 U.S. 238, 75 L.Ed.2d 915, on remand, 716 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1981)3, 4 Williams v. … afford an independent ground for United States Supreme Court review.2° Federal courts will have subject-matter jurisdiction over the procedural due process claims arising under the federal constitution.24
493 U.S. 817Motion to Affirm — Wylan v. California
Supreme Court brief · Motion to Affirm · 1966
App. 24 172 ....---co-0 _ Roth v. U.S., 354° U.S. 476, 1 L. Ed 2d 1498, 77 I tt sibtcccliainininestintannd United States v. Barner, 195 Fed. Supp. 103 ..........4, Whitney v. … Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399 ; 74.L. Ed. 508, 510; 50 S. Ct. 167 (1930). Impossible staydards of specificity are not required. United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1; 91 L. Ed. 1877; 67 S, Ct.
384 U.S. 266Reply Brief — Lake Charles American Press v. McHale
Supreme Court brief · Reply Brief · 1981
MCHALE Respondent Petitioners’ Brief In Reply To Brief Of Respondent In Opposition To Petition For Certiorari COME NOW PETITIONERS, pursuant to Rule 24( 4) of the Supreme Court Rules, to address … Bressler 399 U.S. 6 (1970), and other decisions, are matters of constitutional law, there is no doubt that this Court may make an independent examination of the record “so as to assure . . . that the
452 U.S. 941Agency decision · Agency decision
Commissioner, 13 T.C. 397, 399 (1949), affd. 200 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1952); Humbert v. Commissioner, 24 B.T.A. 828, 829 (1931).
United States Tax CourtAgency decision · Agency decision
Commissioner, 13 T.C. 397, 399 (1949), affd. 200 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1952); Humbert v. Commissioner, 24 B.T.A. 828, 829 (1931).
United States Tax CourtPetitioners Brief — Harvey v. City of St. Petersburg
Supreme Court brief · Petitioners Brief · 1940
Augustine, 139 So. 885, 104 Fla. 399. EER yes ac Sian Ala Nt dy = # = 4 4 : be : : ie 12 Equity Is Without Power to Appoint a Receiver to Levy and Collect Taxes. … S. 734, 24 L.
311 U.S. 697Supreme Court brief · Brief for the Respondent in Opposition · 1960
«> | FILED | OCT 24 1950 JAMES 8. Chewaen, C'erk IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1960. No. 448. … Beilan, 357 U.S. 399 (1958) (Ginvolving the questions of an administrative superior) and brought it within the authority of Slochower v..Board 6f Higher Education of New York City, 850 U.S. 551 (1956
Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Piper Lakay Ellis Snowton, Petitioner v. United States, et al.
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Jan 8, 2020
App’x 397, 399 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curcarr ~s Cartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993)); see alsoMeriive:h€~: ABC _ -aining/Safety Council Tex. … Oct. 24, 2016) (“Courts ‘may raise the :u= tutus rua spontep and, “‘where it is clear from the face of a complaint filed in for^i.z pez~p*~n£ that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute
Supplemental Appendix — Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Supplemental Appendix · 2003
See also reference to transportation of 69 kilos of cocaine and of 20 kilos of cocaine (Tr. 1-24-96, p. 399; Tr. 1-25-96, p. 438). 7 Transcript 2-14-96, pp. 2371-2382, 2384, 2386. 8 Apprendi v.
540 U.S. 876Opposition Brief — Jordan Winczuk, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court brief · Opposition Brief · Nov 20, 2023
. § 2C:24-4b(5)(1) (West 2009). C.A. Sealed App. 18. Based on those prior convictions, the presentence report found that petitioner was subject to Section 2251(e)’s second enhancement. … Moore, 71 F.4th 392, 399 (5th Cir. 2023) (rejecting same limiting argument), petition for cert. pending, No. 23-219 (filed Sept. 5, 2023).
Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Roy E. Terrell, Petitioner v. Florida
Supreme Court brief · Petition for Writ of Certiorari · Aug 5, 2024
State, 305 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (same; erroneous instruction on knowledge element of attempted murder of law enforcement officer). 24 7a The error is fundamental even if the erroneous instruction … Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), held that state court juries as small as six were constitutionally permissible, despite the determination in Thompson v.
Appendix — Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.
Supreme Court brief · Appendix · 1990
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation * 24. … As we noted above, the Commission has vacated its Btu refund offset program in Order No. 399-B.
498 U.S. 907
Ask Donna what matters in the record.
She can read the source against your case and show you exactly where the answer came from.