Search for: "Legall v. State"
Results 181 - 200
of 87,780
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2024, 5:17 am
Conclusion In conclusion, Advocate General de la Tour considers that the refusal to recognize in one Member State a change of first name and gender legally obtained in another Member State violates the freedoms of Art. 21 TFEU. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:51 am
Corp. v Insurance Co. of N. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:26 am
In comparison, Daniels may be the only authentic part of the entire case in New York v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 2:02 am
” Hapney v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:25 pm
Prominent historical examples, like the liberal justices who advanced press freedom in New York Times v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:47 pm
Almost 30 years ago, SCOTUS issued its opinion in United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:19 pm
The same goes for sports gambling, legal in 38 states, but still forbidden in 12. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm
This flawed scope suggests no direct link between the law’s restrictions and the stated security concerns, weakening its justification under strict scrutiny. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm
This flawed scope suggests no direct link between the law’s restrictions and the stated security concerns, weakening its justification under strict scrutiny. [read post]
7 May 2024, 12:30 pm
Bissonnette v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 10:44 am
(Or at least the best one that doesn't take up 20,000+ words.)The California Supreme Court has to wade into all this in deciding this opinion, which holds that, in this particular context, the required mental state of "knowing" is belied by a good faith belief in the legality of one's conduct. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:32 am
So, there was never any legal basis for charging administrative concealment penalties for Lost Wages Assistance. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:31 am
This is recognized in the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) at 9 FAM § 402.1-3 , which states that an “applicant desiring to come to the United States for one principal purpose, and one or more incidental purposes, must be classified in accordance with the principal purpose. [read post]
7 May 2024, 8:47 am
Starbucks (10(j) Relief Standard): On April 23, 2024, oral argument before the United States Supreme Court took place in Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:51 am
Garland, 593 U.S. 155, 171–72 (2021); United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:43 am
Source: USPTO Rothschild moved to dismiss the complaint under the Second Circuit’s Rogers v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:30 am
In a legal and political culture fixated on the Constitution, this absence is striking. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:20 am
v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:12 am
P’ship v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:22 am
Harlow v. [read post]
