Search for: "State v. Harper" Results 201 - 220 of 957
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Oct 2022, 7:23 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Harper, an elections case out of North Carolina that involves how much oversight state courts may exercise over federal elections. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 1:45 am
It explores the work of Child Evangelism Fellowship, the group that won an important Supreme Court victory in 2001 in Good News Club v. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 3:20 pm by CAFE
Harper, a case that could determine whether state courts have the power to review election rules passed by state legislatures.Stay informed. [read post]
13 Dec 2022, 3:20 pm by CAFE
Harper, a case that could determine whether state courts have the power to review election rules passed by state legislatures.Stay informed. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 12:09 pm by Keith Lee
Harper over at Belly of the Beast: The lawyers in Perdue v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 7:08 pm by Brian Shiffrin
The sealing requirement of CPL 160.50 "was designed to lessen the adverse consequences of unsuccessful criminal prosecutions by limiting access to official records and papers in criminal proceedings which terminate in favor of the accused" http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif(Matter of Harper v Angiolillo, 89 NY2d 761, 766 [1997. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 8:05 pm by Walter Olson
High times at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service [Luke Rosiak, Examiner via Jim Harper, Cato] 6th Circuit: In ruling company’s suit against union to be unfair labor practice, NLRB breezed past First Amendment issues [NLRB v. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 1:23 pm
The Supreme Court in Attorney-General of Saskatchewan v. [read post]
8 May 2009, 8:33 pm
Dep't of Labor & Indus., 48 Wn.2d 317, 318, 293 P.2d 391 (1956) (allowing benefits for arthritis); Harper v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Supreme Court didn’t address and debunk ISL on the merits (as it later did last summer in Moore v Harper), the Court dismissed Texas’s filing on the ground that Texas lacked standing under Article III because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. [read post]