Search for: "*long v. Murphy"
Results 161 - 180
of 754
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2018, 7:16 am
Murphy Oil, Inc. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 2:46 am
Corp. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 9:41 am
" Id.; see also City & County of San Francisco v. [read post]
6 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Pursuant to the 1964 SCOTUS ruling in Murphy v. [read post]
21 Aug 2008, 4:08 pm
Murphy, 164 Cal. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 11:00 am
This was finally settled by the California Supreme Court's Murphy v. [read post]
26 Apr 2008, 10:02 am
Murphy, Constitutional Democracy (2006)Keith E. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 5:30 pm
As long as Mr. [read post]
6 Mar 2011, 6:16 am
Henderson v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 4:04 am
Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling in a long-running lawsuit over pensions — a ruling that would require the county to pay out millions of dollars to retired county workers unless it’s overturned. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 6:59 am
Murphy and McGirt v. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 1:33 am
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-00436LG (S.D. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 8:19 am
Citing San Diego v. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 6:06 am
Murphy, 746 F.3d at 1150. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 6:17 am
A new case from the Seventh Circuit (Ballard v. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 6:30 am
Murphy’s exemption stands more than a half-century later, long after Americans achieved a consensus about racial bigotry. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 4:47 pm
In the court below (6 F4th 1160 (10th Cir, 2021)), the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Briscoe J, Murphy J concurring; Tymkovich CJ dissenting) held that, although the appellant’s First Amendment rights were engaged, the State satisfied strict scrutiny: Colorado had a compelling interest in ensuring equal access to publicly available goods and services, and no option short of coercing speech could satisfy that interest. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 10:40 am
Long Valley Road Assn., (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 471, 484–85; Pulido v. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 3:17 am
That opinion overturned Roe v. [read post]
15 Nov 2008, 9:10 am
Absent a specific request for coverage not already in a client's policy, or the existence of a special relationship with the client, an insurance agent or broker has no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct a client to obtain additional coverage (see Murphy v Kuhn, supra; JKT Construction v United States Liab. [read post]
