Search for: "v. " Results 2501 - 2520 of 493,757
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
”[7]  By “traditional notions,” the Adopting Release refers to other SEC regulations and relevant Supreme Court case law (in particular, TSC Industries v. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 3:55 pm by Dennis Crouch
  Read the Petition: Zebra Technologies Corporation v. [read post]
Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court last year rejected the authority of the administration to cancel student loans in their entirety, ruling in Biden v. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 11:29 am by Giles Peaker
ZRR, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Bexley (2024) EWHC 2073 (Admin) This was a judicial review of Bexley’s contention that temporary accommodation offered to ZRR under s.190 Housing Act 1996 was suitable and its duty was discharged when ZRR refused that accommodation. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 10:23 am by Arkady Itkin
Under the California Supreme Court case Brown v Superior Court (1984) case, the special provisions of this FEHA venue law “control in cases involving FEHA claims joined with non-FEHA claims arising from the same facts. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 9:15 am by Steve Brachmann
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential ruling in Unification Technologies LLC v. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 9:15 am by Steve Brachmann
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential ruling in Unification Technologies LLC v. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 4:00 am by Josh Blackman
The Supreme Court held this order was constitutional in Korematsu v. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 4:00 am by SOQUIJ
Quant à l’utilisation de 3 points d’exclamation dans le récit portant sur le moyen de défense de l’appelant relatif au premier événement délictuel, il s’agit d’une incongruité fâcheuse. [read post]
11 Aug 2024, 3:38 am by jonathanturley
We have previously discussed controversial sentences handed down in cases involving rioters on January 6th, including sentencing orders that, in my view, violate First Amendment rights. [read post]