In one click, you will find all the information you are interested in about UNITED STATES V BRAND JEWELERS INC. We have collected the most complete and diverse information for you.
https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/3310
Invoking the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345, the Government brings this action against Brand Jewelers, Inc., a retail seller of watches, jewelry and other consumer goods; Brand's president and sole stockholder, Howard Star; its attorney, Sol H. Erstein; and two corporations and 15 individuals, styled "the process serving defendants" (including the officers of the corporate service agencies, notaries public …
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/318/1293/1480865/
Invoking the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345, [1] the Government brings this action against Brand Jewelers, Inc., a retail seller of watches, jewelry and other consumer goods; Brand's president and sole stockholder, Howard Star; its attorney, Sol H. Erstein; and two corporations and 15 individuals, styled "the process serving defendants" (including the officers of the corporate service agencies, notaries public who participate in proving service and individuals employed in the ...
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c789add7b049347e3522
Get free access to the complete judgment in UNITED STATES v. BRAND JEWELERS, INC., (S.D.N.Y. 1970) on CaseMine.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-866_0971.pdf?loclr=blogcop
v. VARSITY BRANDS, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT . No. 15–866. Argued October 31, 2016—Decided March 22, 2017 . ... Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of …Created Date: 3/20/2017 12:18:30 PM
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-3214.pdf
See Hydro Res., Inc. v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 608 F.3d 1131, 1146 & n.10 (10th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (declining to address level of deference due where agency did not ask for deference to its statutory interpretation).
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyed-to-lafave/mental-state/united-states-v-jewell-2/
United States v. Jewell. United States v. Jewell. Brief Fact Summary. Appellant contends that he did not have the requisite mental state when he drove a car into the United States that contained concealed drugs. Appellant argued that he had no actual knowledge of the drugs. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Willful blindness is equivalent to knowledge.
You've looked at the most informative UNITED STATES V BRAND JEWELERS INC links. On our site you can also find a lot of other information related to jewelry.
