Search for: "North Carolina v. Tennessee" Results 181 - 200 of 427
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2017, 11:51 am by Mark Walsh
” The case of Martinez-Hidalgo v. [read post]
17 Feb 2017, 1:34 pm by Bill Marler
In total, 134 people with hepatitis A have been reported from nine states: Arkansas (1), California (1), Maryland (12), New York (3), North Carolina (1), Oregon (1), Virginia (107), West Virginia (7), and Wisconsin (1). [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 2:14 am by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
Defendant father owned an RV, and while he was camping in North Carolina near where his son lived, he called his son and asked him to help wax the RV. [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 2:14 am by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
Defendant father owned an RV, and while he was camping in North Carolina near where his son lived, he called his son and asked him to help wax the RV. [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 8:25 am by Ilya Somin
The other panelists are Richard Ford (Stanford), Melissa Hart (Colorado), Richard Sander (UCLA), and Erika Wilson (University of North Carolina). [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 8:49 am by Jeff Welty
I couldn’t locate a North Carolina appellate case addressing this issue. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 8:49 am by Jeff Welty
I couldn’t locate a North Carolina appellate case addressing this issue. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 12:00 pm by Law Office of Michael D. Maurer, P.A.
The plaintiff was a foreman from Tennessee who installed cell phone towers and was building one in North Carolina. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 7:43 am by John Elwood
Tennessee — concerning the constitutionality of victim impact statements — implicitly overruled Booth v. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 6:51 am by Jim Sedor
The money followed a legal but circuitous route turbocharged by the 2014 ruling in McCutcheon v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 1:18 pm by John Elwood
North Carolina, 15-1194. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 9:30 pm by Justin Daniel
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order that sought to preempt state laws of Tennessee and North Carolina aimed at restricting the expansion of “municipal broadband” services—broadband provided by local governments—to underserved areas. [read post]