Search for: "State v. Means"
Results 2481 - 2500
of 61,249
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2014, 8:58 am
In 2012 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Miller v. [read post]
17 May 2018, 1:08 pm
Reversing the determination that a New Jersey law repealing prohibitions on sports gambling violated the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, making it unlawful for a State or its subdivisions to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize betting on sports because by permitting sports betting the State was authorizing sports betting under the statute as PASPA was held to violate the anticommandeering rule stating that Congress cannot… [read post]
Case Comment: Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 Part Two
13 Mar 2017, 2:42 am
The majority drew upon the case law of the ECtHR (Rodriguez Da Silva, Hoogkamer v Netherlands and Jeunesse v Netherlands). [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 5:44 am
US and Arizona v. [read post]
29 Mar 2007, 10:28 pm
Perfect 10 v. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 7:34 am
After a bench trial, a Connecticut state court rejected a violation of trade secret complaint by an employer against a former employee in BTS USA v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 4:55 am
Also see R (SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2015] UKSC 16, at paras 105-106 [read post]
1 May 2010, 11:33 am
In Arista Records v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 3:38 am
Lord Reed, giving the leading judgment, stated that the question was whether the established indirect discrimination was a proportionate means of meeting legitimate aims. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 2:30 pm
Zolg v. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 7:16 am
In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 11:28 am
Yes, we're a bit nit-picky when the United States is concerned, and, yes, the United States has promulgated rules that are very much in favor of . . . surprise, surprise . . . the United States. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:56 am
Calabotta v. [read post]
27 May 2012, 10:31 pm
The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously took Congress at its word last week. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 12:13 pm
Brown or Pittsburgh Press Co. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 9:41 am
The following contribution to our symposium on Kiobel v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:52 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 12:14 pm
In United States v. [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 7:38 am
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from putting its new claims and continuation rules into effect (SmithKline Beecham Corporation et al. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2025, 3:17 pm
See United States v. [read post]
