Search for: "State v. Strange"
Results 181 - 200
of 2,178
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2009, 10:24 am
Strange. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 3:08 am
" Concerning electronic discovery, one respondent stated, "The new rules are a nightmare. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 2:02 pm
Ct. 586, 597 (2007); and United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 7:00 am
She previously authored The Legal History of the Presidential Management Fellows Program and Hansberry v. [read post]
15 Nov 2015, 7:48 pm
How did we get here, to such a strange result that might so profoundly disrupt several decades of work authorization rules and practices? [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 8:18 pm
BLAUER v. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 12:02 pm
There are lots more cases recognizing broad preemption in product liability cases involving pre-market approved (PMA) medical devices than refusing to, but strange things happen in tort preemption cases, so we don't view anything - especially in state court - as a sure thing.Blog reader Alan Lazarus over at Drinker Biddle has just (and we do mean just) sent us a favorable PMA preemption opinion, Blanco v. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 12:39 am
Rives in the case of United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2011, 7:02 am
Abraxis BioScience v. [read post]
7 Sep 2009, 6:10 am
Inazu (Duke University School of Law) has posted The Strange Origins of the Constitutional Right of Association (Tennessee Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. [read post]
2 Oct 2007, 7:56 am
Southern California Edison Co. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 4:58 am
In another 5-4 decision, though borne of strange bedfellows, the Supreme Court has reversed in Bullcoming v. [read post]
25 May 2023, 1:33 pm
Today, in Sackett v. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 6:31 am
The first is Klayman v. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court vacated the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA in 2020 when—by a 5-4 margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority—it decided Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 6:55 am
The Attorney General of New Hampshire argues that the correct procedural rule is the rule of United States v. [read post]
10 Mar 2009, 9:36 am
Shoe Co. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2007, 9:11 am
See, e.g., State v. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 8:57 am
The case, Rodriguez v. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 10:48 am
At Monday's oral argument in Nijhawan v. [read post]
