Search for: "State v. Duke"
Results 201 - 220
of 2,020
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2018, 7:26 am
District Court Follows Dukes Admonition Nearly seven years ago, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 6:17 am
Edwards v. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 5:00 am
The court discussed Wal-Mart 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]
7 Jun 2009, 9:41 pm
Duke Power Co. [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 10:51 am
This Sept. 19, 2006 ILB entry was headed "State of Indiana sides with Duke in case against EPA. [read post]
3 Apr 2007, 4:00 pm
Duke Energy in case you missed anything. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 11:37 am
Dukes and AT&T v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 10:50 am
United States in a Surveillance Society: A Statutory Implementation of Mosaic Theory (Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, Forthcoming) on SSRN. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 1:37 pm
Windsor" I'm sure that I'm continuing to miss new pieces on United States v. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 1:00 pm
See Sullivan v. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 4:18 pm
(quoting State v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 9:23 am
The current case is Dukes v. [read post]
29 Oct 2011, 5:24 am
Dukes, and Turner v. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 4:33 am
Dukes. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 7:01 am
In Magalhaes v. [read post]
27 Apr 2005, 1:24 pm
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in Bates v. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 10:08 am
The court voted 7-2 to reject federal and state prosecutors' petitions [JURIST report] for rehearing of the case. [read post]
21 Jun 2007, 10:02 am
United States [Duke Law case backgrounder; JURIST report], where the Court held that a prison sentence falling within the federal sentencing guidelines may be presumed to be a reasonable sentence on appeal, but the presumption of reasonableness is not binding. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 6:25 pm
United States [Duke Law case backgrounder; merit briefs], 06-1456, where the Court considered "whether merely hiding funds with no design to create the appearance of legitimate wealth is sufficient to support a money laundering conviction" under 18 USC 1956(a)(2)(B) [read post]
