Search for: "Paxton v. Paxton"
Results 241 - 260
of 347
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Aug 2020, 12:37 pm
Paxton, No. 17-51060 (5th Cir.). [read post]
28 May 2020, 10:00 am
Forescout v. [read post]
19 May 2020, 11:45 am
In Valentine v. [read post]
8 May 2020, 10:00 am
D/B/A TMZ; TMZ.COM; AND ELIZABETH MCKERNAN v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 8:22 am
Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 9:00 pm
Under Roe, state laws banning or restrictively regulating abortion were invalid.After two decades of backlash and maneuvering by the anti-abortion movement (including violence against clinics and providers), the Court revisited Roe in Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 5:00 am
Paxton, No. 17-51060 (5th Cir.) [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 4:17 am
According to the Washington Post, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading the charge of state attorneys general against Google’s advertising monopoly: Ken Paxton is no fan of Google. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 4:04 am
Forest Service v. [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 5:08 pm
" Healy v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 7:30 am
San Jacinto River Authority and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas (No. 18-0989) Homer Hillis v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 1:54 pm
Hixon v. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 7:30 am
(No. 17-0464) State Taxes Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 7:51 am
Co. v Batista, 165 AD3d 997, 998; Doviak v Finkelstein &Partners, LLP, 90 AD3d 696, 699; Quinn v Walsh, 18 AD3d 638; Brill v Friends World Coll., 133 AD2d 729). [read post]
20 May 2019, 12:29 pm
Paxton still works for the Department of Social Services. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 3:53 am
” In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton urges the court to review Klein v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 7:31 am
</p> </div> <div style="padding-top:0px;padding-bottom:0px;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:35px;" data-rss-type="text"> <p style="margin:0px;"> Texas Attorney General Paxton praised the ruling, saying that it “halts an unconstitutional exertion of federal power over the American health care system” so that Congress can have “the opportunity to replace the failed social experiment with a plan… [read post]
6 Feb 2019, 8:47 am
Background: The case is Pena v. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 6:12 am
[Law.com] * The New Yorker has a deep dive into Plessy v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:12 am
Supreme Court majority’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. [read post]
