Search for: "Billings v. Smith" Results 241 - 260 of 1,621
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2024, 1:28 pm by NARF
Smith (Criminal Jurisdiction; Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005) United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 3:36 pm
I argued that the Court should never overturn the results of an election absent a showing that the voters knowingly had voted for an unqualified candidate citing, inter alia, Oviatt v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 7:00 am
(photo: Grifmo) MobileMe v. [read post]
18 May 2021, 10:25 am by Mara Curtis and Mona Razani
In a split 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 5 in California Trucking Association et al. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 6:20 am by Jon L. Gelman
Bills are pending before both houses of the legislature. [read post]
27 Dec 2009, 1:47 pm
Yves Smith, responding, thinks it's worse than that. [read post]
26 Jul 2007, 11:06 am
We urge you to take the concerns of the manufacturing sectors of these issues into account in developing the final version of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 1908.Read the AFL/CIO letter here (link)See The Politico article, titled "Tech v. [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 4:01 pm by David Smith
The post Of Penalties and Possession by David Smith appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Russo, Religious Freedom in Faith-Based Educational Institutions in the Wake of Obergefell v. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Esbeck, The Free Exercise Clause, Its Original Public Meaning, and the Reconsideration of Employment Division of Oregon v. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 7:03 pm
" Peter Smith of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that "U.S., religious charities spar over Obamacare birth control plan. [read post]
21 Jun 2021, 3:33 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, finding that these allegations, even if proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (see Sammy v Haupel, 170 AD3d at 1225-1226; Seldon v Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 116 AD3d 490, 491 [2014]; Schiller v Bender, Burrows &… [read post]