Did you mean: US v. Davis et al?
Web Results

United States v. Davis (1962) - Wikipedia


United States v. Davis, 370 U.S. 65 (1962) is a federal income tax case argued before the ... Full case name, United States v. Thomas Crawley Davis, et al.

United States v. Davis (full text) :: 370 U.S. 65 (1962) :: Justia U.S. ...


United States v. Davis, 370 U.S. 65 (1962). United States v. Davis. No. 190 ... Commissioner, 13 T.C. 816 (1949); Estate of Stouffer v. .... 268, Davis et al. v.

UNITED STATES v. DAVIS - Cases and Codes - FindLaw


Sep 8, 2014 ... Case opinion for US 7th Circuit UNITED STATES v. DAVIS. Read the Court's full decision on ... Paul DAVIS, Jr., et al., Defendants–Appellees.

UNITED STATES v. DAVIS - Cases and Codes - FindLaw


268, Davis et al. v. United States, also on certiorari to the same Court. Pursuant to a property settlement agreement later incorporated in a divorce decree, ...

Davis v. United States


Davis v. United States 370 U.S. 65 (1962). Mr. and Mrs. Davis were getting a divorce. As part of the settlement, Mr. Davis agreed to give some stocks to his ...

ZADVYDAS v. DAVIS - Cornell University


ZADVYDAS v. ... DAVIS et al. ... period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention.

United States v. Davis – Wrestling With the Third Party Doctrine ...


May 13, 2015 ... Writing for the court, Judge Hull concludes that the case is controlled by United States v. Miller (1976) and Smith v. Maryland (1979), which ...

USA v. Davis et al :: Virginia Eastern District Court :: Federal Court ...


Sep 25, 2016 ... USA v. Davis et al, Case No. 2:10-mj-00104 in the Virginia Eastern District Court.

Electronic Arts v. Davis - SCOTUSblog


Mar 21, 2016 ... Electronic Arts v. Davis. Petition for certiorari denied on March 21, ... Dec 8 2015, Brief of respondents Michael E. Davis, et al. in opposition filed.

Davis, Paul (en banc)


Jul 13, 2015 ... v. PAUL DAVIS, JR., et al., ... Appeal from the United States District Court for the ... cutor opposed this motion, contending that United States v.