Search for: "Best v. State Bar" Results 221 - 240 of 4,830
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2018, 2:02 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas (Indian Gaming Regulatory Act - Class II Gaming)United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2020, 7:07 am by Derek T. Muller
Another is that the Montana Supreme Court viewed it as inappropriate to try to control the specific curriculum of the law school to ensure that there would be the advantage of diploma privilege of in-state law school graduates.Wisconsin adheres to this old tradition, if somewhat inconsistently—state bar controlling the curriculum (to a degree), an advantage for in-state graduates, a focus on state-specific law.This in-state v.… [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 2:49 pm by Gregory Forman
In a highly anticipated case that generated much local notoriety, and in which some of my friends and colleagues participated, the United States Supreme Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court in the case of Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 1:45 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Out-of-state employers, insurers, employee benefit plan vendors, and other businesses registered to do business in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, or another state that requires that out-of-state businesses consent to jurisdiction as a condition of their registration to do business in the state face a heightened risk of getting hauled into court in the consent to jurisdiction state following last month’s Supreme Court decision in… [read post]
15 Nov 2015, 7:48 pm by Marty Lederman
 At best, they technically did not resolve the so-called "take care" claim that rests upon it. [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 5:19 am
Despite a criminal defense attorney's best efforts, a Brooklyn State Supreme Court Justice ruled in a decision published yesterday that the United States Supreme Court's decision in the District of Columbia v. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 5:57 am by John Jascob
The appellate panel also rejected arguments that amended Regulation A should be vacated as arbitrary and capricious because the SEC failed to explain adequately how the rule protects investors (Lindeen v. [read post]