Search for: "State v. Eder"
Results 1 - 20
of 152
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 May 2024, 1:23 pm
” “Such caution,” he explained, “is necessary because “[f]ederal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 8:22 am
United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. [read post]
5 Nov 2023, 1:38 pm
Zepeda v. [read post]
15 Jul 2023, 4:21 pm
Vidal v. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 1:58 am
Leonid V. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 1:58 am
Leonid V. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 4:07 am
On 29 June 2023, judgment was handed down in R v Dent, 2023 ONCA 460. [read post]
25 Jun 2023, 10:14 pm
(United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 12:11 pm
Co. v. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 12:32 pm
ShareOn Thursday in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. [read post]
23 Apr 2023, 2:42 pm
“[F]ederal courts have no jurisdiction over suits for divorce or the allowance of alimony. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 7:01 am
The Supreme Court has never adopted the theory (indeed, it has previously rejected it), but recently agreed to hear Moore v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:02 pm
"[F]ederal constitutional claims may not be asserted in the Court of Claims, given that the statutory basis for such claims, 42 USC § 1983, authorizes claims only against a 'person' and defendant is not a person within the meaning of this statute" (Oppenheimer v State of New York, 152 AD3d 1006, 1008 [2017]; accord Moreland v State of New York, 200 AD3d 1362, 1365 [2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 906 [2022]; see Will v Michigan… [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:02 pm
"[F]ederal constitutional claims may not be asserted in the Court of Claims, given that the statutory basis for such claims, 42 USC § 1983, authorizes claims only against a 'person' and defendant is not a person within the meaning of this statute" (Oppenheimer v State of New York, 152 AD3d 1006, 1008 [2017]; accord Moreland v State of New York, 200 AD3d 1362, 1365 [2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 906 [2022]; see Will v Michigan… [read post]
24 May 2022, 8:53 am
But Monday’s unanimous decision in Morgan v. [read post]
16 May 2022, 10:57 pm
” In Patel v. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 4:29 am
Once complete, “the plaintiff gets an order directing payment of the sum of money found due” (Ederer v Gursky, 881 NE 2d 204 [2007]). [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 4:14 am
In DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. [read post]
18 Dec 2021, 9:54 am
This limitation is constitutionally mandated, separating our branch from our political co-branches. '[F]ederal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.' [quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]