Search for: "Held v. State" Results 2901 - 2920 of 82,195
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Oct 2016, 11:30 am by Daniel Hemel
North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), the Supreme Court held that states cannot collect sales... [read post]
5 Sep 2006, 12:52 pm
App. 1/6/06), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that the state's tax system violates the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 7:50 am
The court held that an employee who alleged hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation could proceed to trial on her state-law claims even... [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 2:04 pm by Ruthann Robson
Trump, the Appellate Division, First Department of the New York State courts held that the lawsuit for defamation could proceed against the... [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 8:03 am by Media Law Prof
NBC Universal, the "cable channel" ruling, in which it held that the cable industry's practice of "bundling" did not injure consumers--thus, the consumer plaintiffs failed to state a claim under... [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 2:13 pm by Ruthann Robson
Haslam, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee, Aleta Trauger, has held unconstitutional Tennessee Code §40-24-105(b) which revokes the... [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 5:36 am by Sandy
Countrywide Financial Corp., held that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 bars appellate review of orders remanding securities class actions to state court.The Second Circuit's decision can be found here. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 10:55 am by laborprof lpb
In that case, the panel had held that the First Amendment's ministerial exception barred an action for overtime compensation brought under state law... [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 12:20 pm by Paul Caron
. __ (2022): The Supreme Court held, in Bob Jones University v. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 9:04 pm
The state Supreme Court held that an employee who holds multiple positions with an employer is eligible for... [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 5:08 pm
The Second Circuit held that it was a violation of the Confrontation Clause for a District Court to prevent a minority-group defendant from cross-examining a government witness about his swastica tatoos.The decision in United States v. [read post]