Search for: "Bland v. State" Results 261 - 280 of 380
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jul 2007, 12:35 am
As Senator Clinton knows, the wearing of bland pants suits can attract negative remarks because it seems to represent a masquerade of sorts -- a woman who dresses like a man even though she obviously is not a man. [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 1:37 am
"It's worth noting, if only as an aside, that Zed's bland prayer was in fact consistent with monotheism. [read post]
23 May 2017, 7:16 am by Ronald Mann
The Supreme Court confirmed that regime in its 1957 decision in Fourco Glass v Transmirra Products. [read post]
6 Oct 2013, 12:43 pm by Kevin Shah
In a decision that expands the First Amendment’s definition of protectable speech, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Bland v. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 8:27 am by Venkat Balasubramani
"] Other aspects of the dispute that had intersting and recurring social media tweaks: other public employee cases have raised the similar issue of whether the employee was speaking as a citizen or an employee; the law is employer-favorable, but I would not be surprised to see an appeals court give her another chance (this aspect of the dispute vaguely reminds me of Bland v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 6:00 am by Patrick Babin
  The Benefits Review Board found in Lindsay v. [read post]
6 Jul 2013, 10:38 am by Venkat
Sioux Falls Independent School Dist.Facebook "Likes" Aren't Speech Protected By the First Amendment–Bland v. [read post]
7 May 2009, 6:08 am
As the court stated in McClain:[A]nother methodological problem undermines [the expert's] analogical approach. . . . [read post]
4 Apr 2018, 2:00 pm
” He continued: “One can only contemplate with dread the answer the current Court would have given had it been asked to overrule Plessy v. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 12:33 am
Board of Education) through 1973 (when it ruled on Roe v. [read post]
13 Jan 2014, 9:57 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Facebook “Likes” Aren’t Speech Protected By the First Amendment–Bland v. [read post]