Search for: "JAMES V. STATE"
Results 2821 - 2840
of 10,686
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Sep 2007, 3:28 pm
The petition in Macfarlane v. [read post]
14 Oct 2019, 8:31 am
The Herrick v. [read post]
22 Aug 2014, 5:21 am
Colasanti and Ryder outsideOakland Circuit Court in MarchWe here at the Law Blogger could not help but notice that same sex couple Frank Colasonti, Jr. and James Ryder were in federal court yesterday before U.S. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 9:19 am
Mich.) and Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2023, 10:08 am
Google., Inc. and Authors Guild v. [read post]
7 Jul 2009, 12:07 pm
James G. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 6:01 am
You would have to think that Judge James M. [read post]
4 May 2010, 9:04 am
Columbia Law prof James Liebman contributes an essay to SCOTUS Blog's appreciation of Justice John Paul Stevens. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 12:54 am
Perhaps both sides over-state their case. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 11:34 am
State of Indiana (NFP) James Beck v. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 8:39 am
Clickbooth.com, LLC, et al., No. 16-195 (please clarify the meaning of ‘abstract idea’ and ‘inventive process’) Post Grant Admin: James L. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 7:15 am
McCulloch v. [read post]
3 May 2011, 6:45 am
Concepcion (which James covered yesterday). [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 7:30 am
Under these circumstances, opined the Appellate Division, Plaintiff substantially prevailed within the meaning of Public Officers Law §89(4)(c), citing Matter of Madeiros v New York State Educ. [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 7:30 am
Under these circumstances, opined the Appellate Division, Plaintiff substantially prevailed within the meaning of Public Officers Law §89(4)(c), citing Matter of Madeiros v New York State Educ. [read post]
11 Jan 2018, 7:13 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 2:33 pm
Among them was a holding that Miller v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 7:07 pm
In Dishmon et al. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 12:24 pm
See Nigra v. [read post]
24 Nov 2020, 7:44 am
Judges James Dennis and James Graves, dissenting, said that the decision subjects millions of Medicaid recipients to “unlawful state interference with their choice of health care providers. [read post]
