Web Results


Shelby County, in the covered jurisdiction of Alabama, sued the U.S. Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for D.C. in Washington, D.C, seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. On September 21, 2011, Judge John D.


Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case, originally filed on September 19, 2001, challenging the constitutionality of the application of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, a treaty seeking to equalize copyright protection on an international basis. In the United States, the ...


Jan 18, 2012 ... Syllabus. GOLAN ET AL. v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL,. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR. THE TENTH CIRCUIT. No. 10–545. Argued October 5, 2011—Decided January 18, 2012. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.


Oct 5, 2011 ... Petitioner. Lawrence Golan, et al. Respondent. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al. ... The Court soundly rejected Golan's argument that taking works out of the public domain violated the constitutional "limited times" requirement, following the reasoning from Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).


Aug 19, 2016 ... Society of the City of New York, et al. in support of ... respectively. See Aref v. Holder, 774 F. Supp. 2d 147, 153. (D.D.C. 2011). The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) designed. CMUs in response to a problem identified by the Department .... involved communication and association with al-Qaida—as the basis for his ...


Petitioner Shelby County, Alabama, a covered jurisdiction, asserts that the preclearance regime exceeds Congress's power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth .... Respondent-Intervenors Earl Cunningham et al. argue that Shelby County's argument fails because the coverage formula need not be a perfect fit, but only ...


Dec 21, 2011 ... On December 1, 2011, in Flynn v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the ban on selling “bone marrow” that is part of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 does not encompass “peripheral blood stem cells” obtained through apheresis. This ruling means that the sale ...