Search for: "Brown v. South Carolina, State of" Results 161 - 180 of 304
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Oct 2014, 9:11 am by John Elwood
South Carolina, 13-8427, the last holdover from OT2013, fell victim to a R.O.U.S. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 3:30 am by Peter Mahler
  On October 16, 2014, at the third annual LLC Institute held in Arlington, Virginia, I’ll be on a panel along with Professor Eric Chiappinelli (Texas Tech University School of Law), Professor Benjamin Means (University of South Carolina School of Law), Professor Douglas Moll (University of Houston Law Center), and Professor Robert Thompson (Georgetown Law) for a program called Family Business Disputes. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 11:00 am by Karen Tani
Parental Authority, Incomplete Transfers, and Japanese Courts in Colonial Taiwan, 1919-1936” -Nurfadzilah Yahaya “Question of Guardianship in Colonial Southeast Asia: Arab Children under British and Dutch Rule” Commentator: MJ Maynes & Barbara Young Welke Panel 5: Class, Sexuality, Race and Social Order -Cynthia Greenlee “Due to Her Tender Age: African-Americans, Child Rape and South Carolina Courts, 1885-1905” -Sara Mayeux “Car Trouble:… [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 9:43 am
Feb. 28, 2014)), Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 6:47 am by Jim Sedor
South CarolinaSouth Carolina Senate Postpones Vote on Ethics Compromise after House Grudgingly Passes Columbus Republic – Andrew Coffman Smith (Associated Press) | Published: 6/5/2014 The South Carolina General Assembly was on the cusp of passing its first attempt at ethics reform in 20 years when Sen. [read post]
29 May 2014, 10:50 am by Guest Blogger
Despite “the difficulty & awkwardness of operating by force on the collective will of a State,” armed federal intervention in state affairs must be permitted.[4]During the Convention, on three different occasions, Madison tried to grant the federal government this absolute “negative” (what we now call a veto) over all state legislation. [read post]
19 Apr 2014, 8:12 am
Black teachers in South Carolina, where another of the desegregation suits had been filed, worried, with some cause, that integration would end a state of affairs in which black children, though deprived of equal resources, at least benefitted from teachers who did not calibrate their expectations according to the color of their students’ skin. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 9:00 am by Rose Falconer
  To mark this anniversary, South Carolina has unveiled a life-sized monument to honour Judge Waties Waring in the garden of its federal courthouse in Charleston. [read post]
30 Mar 2014, 4:45 pm by Joy Waltemath
Dismissing the non-Title VII claims, the district court agreed with the magistrate that the Equal Employment Opportunity Act expressly subjected federal agencies to Title VII’s prohibitions and, as held by the Supreme Court in Brown v General Servs Admin, Title VII is “an exclusive, pre-emptive administrative and judicial scheme for the redress of federal employment discrimination. [read post]
16 Mar 2014, 4:34 pm by Jack Pringle
Brown, Supreme Court, May 8, 2013 TakewayThis case marks the first instance in which a South Carolina appellate court has vacated an arbitration award pursuant to S.C. [read post]
16 Mar 2014, 4:34 pm by Jack Pringle
Brown, Supreme Court, May 8, 2013 TakewayThis case marks the first instance in which a South Carolina appellate court has vacated an arbitration award pursuant to S.C. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 7:42 am
Fast forward to 1956, when North Carolina decided to deal with Brown v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 5:10 pm
(The Fourth Circuit is the federal appellate circuit covering Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.) [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 6:22 am by Marty Lederman
The plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood argue that federal law compels them to act contrary to their religious obligations, by requiring them to offer (and pay for and administer) employee health insurance plans that include contraception coverage. [read post]