Search for: "State v. Light"
Results 2701 - 2720
of 29,346
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 May 2023, 2:18 pm
The post Has Moore v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 9:09 am
On Friday, October 26, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, filed a supplemental brief urging the Court that the case of Windsor v. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 12:24 pm
Indeed, in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. [read post]
7 Dec 2022, 4:07 pm
(See Aptos Residents Assn. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 10:03 am
The case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 2:06 pm
National Institiute of Family Life Advocates v. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 5:00 am
The Supreme Court held the opposite in Tobacco II: [Business and Professions Code section 17204], construed in light of the "concern that wrongdoers not retain the benefits of their misconduct" (Fletcher v. [read post]
22 Oct 2007, 9:52 pm
People v. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 4:59 pm
On June 10, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. [read post]
30 Nov 2008, 4:28 pm
"On Wednesday, CAAF will hear argument in United States v. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 8:19 am
The Administrative Court did not think it right to decline jurisdiction in the light of binding authorities in this area. [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 9:36 am
The ruling reversed a decision by the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 10:44 am
ALLISON V. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 12:10 pm
Bass v. [read post]
8 Nov 2022, 6:06 am
In the wake of the landmark decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 11:15 am
An additional point in the Corps's favor is that none of the federal or state agencies the Corps consulted opposed the project or the Corps's analysis. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 12:15 pm
Davis v. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
Petitioner filed an appeal pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging the District’s decision.The Appellate Division, sustaining the District’s action, noted that in addition to charges alleging excessive socializing and failure to complete assigned duties, Charge V, Specification 1, alleged that Petitioner stated that he "wanted to get a gun and go postal on this place. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
Petitioner filed an appeal pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging the District’s decision.The Appellate Division, sustaining the District’s action, noted that in addition to charges alleging excessive socializing and failure to complete assigned duties, Charge V, Specification 1, alleged that Petitioner stated that he "wanted to get a gun and go postal on this place. [read post]
17 Jun 2017, 1:06 pm
Here is Randolph v. [read post]