Search results for: "2" (2803 results)
2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804)). 109. See id. at 202. 110. Id. (footnote omitted). 111. Id. at 220. But see United States v. Corey, 232 F.3d 1166
2566, 2603 (2012) (plurality opin- ion). 82. NASBO 2011-2013, supra note 45, at 2. 83. NASBO 2010-2012, supra note 80, at 2. 84. Id. 85. In 2011
1962)). 137. Roe v. Dep’t of Def., 947 F.3d 207, 228 (4th Cir. 2020). 138. Deese v. Esper, No. 18-CV-2669, 2020 WL 5230370, at *11 (D. Md. Sept. 2
shipped materials. See id. 21. Id. § 2257(h)(2)(b)(i). 22. Id. § 2257(h)(2)(b)(ii) and (iii). 23. Id. § 2257(h)(2); 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4) (2007
Cir. Feb. 10, 2009). 25. Hayes v. Conway, No. 05 Civ. 4088, 2007 WL 2265151, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2007). 26. Id. 27. Id. 28. Id. at *3
379, 380 (7th Cir. 2003). 2. Id. 3. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12,101-12,213 (2000). 4. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654. 5. 328 F.3d at 382-83. 6. 29 C.F.R
Rivera-Morales, 166 F. Supp. 3d 154, 163-68 (D.P.R. 2015); O’Leary v. Secretary, No. 2:12-cv-599-FtM-29CM, 2015 WL 1909732, at *20 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27
deference, see Pappas, supra note 4, at 1010-24. HUDSON_PREPRESS_V2.DOC 12/5/2009 2:40:13 PM a case for varying interpretive deference 375 While
limitations in our 27. Starr & Rehavi, supra note 1, at 67. 28. Schmitt et al., supra note 2, at 251. 29. Id. at 255. 30. Id. 31. Id. Note that we also
McKinley, supra note 2, at 1199-1200. 248. Id. at 1199. 249. Id. at 1200. 250. Id. at 1201. 251. Id. 252. Hasen, supra note 2, at 208. 253