Search for: "State v. Davi" Results 2581 - 2600 of 5,655
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Sep 2015, 4:54 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 Is this guy trying to match wits with Kim Davis over in Kentucky? [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 9:44 am by WSLL
Affirmed.Case Name: RALPH LAVERNE HUNNICUTT-CARTER v. [read post]
18 Jan 2009, 8:24 am
Ruling of the Court: In Birke v. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 9:00 pm
Davis (06-666), asking whether the "dormant" Commerce Clause prohibits states from exempting interest income from in-state bonds while taxing interest income from bonds issued by other states. [read post]
26 Feb 2018, 4:32 am by Edith Roberts
” At National Law Review, Donald Davis looks at the court’s decision last week in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2014, 8:51 am by Mark S. Humphreys
The style of the case is, Twin City Fire Insurance Company v. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 8:22 am by WIMS
<> UC Davis and Honda Unveil Smart Home For a Zero-Carbon Future - Honda and the University of California, Davis aren't particularly known for constructing homes, but an ambitious project places the two entities at the forefront of designing homes capable of producing more renewable energy. . . [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 11:04 am by Peter Vodola
Co., 13 N.Y. 31 [1855]), and a few decades later the United States Supreme Court rejected it also (Grigsby v. [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 4:55 am by Edith Roberts
Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer, and Justice Samuel Alito, along with several jurists from the United Kingdom visiting the United States as part of a legal exchange program, participated in a reenactment of a 1794 Supreme Court case, Georgia v. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 9:55 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 8 – 9 June 2011. [read post]
And they also understand that the state’s ostensible goal—anti-pollution—could be more precisely accomplished by a law that is more directly tailored to the state’s purpose, a ban on littering (as the Court reasoned in Schneider v. [read post]