Search for: "Washington v. State"
Results 3101 - 3120
of 17,747
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Nov 2010, 6:27 am
United States and Gould v. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 3:13 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
14 May 2008, 6:50 am
The Great Turnback of grants and regulatory discretion to the states was a product of two former governors -- Reagan and Clinton -- with such notable (or infamous, if you are so inclined) measures as TANF, expansion of section 1115 Medicaid waivers, Lopez/Morrison/Gonzales v Oregon judicial vindication of state power, etc. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 7:51 am
Yousoufian v. [read post]
4 Jan 2008, 9:14 pm
Information on Coker v. [read post]
16 Jun 2012, 8:48 pm
In Moore v. [read post]
21 May 2020, 12:51 pm
Ankenbrandt v. [read post]
24 Jan 2024, 10:14 am
Morgan Washington State’s Proposed Employer Social Media Law: The Legislature Should Take a Cautious Approach — SB 5211 Big Problems in California’s New Law Restricting Employers’ Access to Employees’ Online Accounts (Forbes Cross-Post) “Social Media and Trademark Law” Talk Notes Court Denies Kravitz’s Motion to Dismiss PhoneDog’s Amended Claims — PhoneDog v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
In State of Washington v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 10:00 am
See Amelco Elec. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 9:01 pm
Edelman is an attorney in Washington, D.C. [read post]
22 May 2020, 3:11 pm
Truly v. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 8:59 pm
Hesse v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 2:35 pm
Lane v. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 6:03 pm
Per BNA's Class Action Litigation Report:A federal court in Washington, D.C., Nov. 6 certified a class of drug wholesalers alleging two pharmaceutical companies agreed to hold a generic contraceptive drug off the market in violation of federal antitrust law (Meijer Inc. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 4:58 am
The complaint (full text) in Rabinowitz v. [read post]
21 May 2008, 4:46 pm
The Ninth Circuit reasoned:In United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
Yesterday, in Laffitte v. [read post]
27 Jul 2018, 10:24 am
Carty v. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 9:48 am
The second part of the judgment then focused on whether such violation was justified by the unique qualities of the property in question, the peculiarities of its discovery, or the Italian State’s interest in preserving the integrity of its cultural patrimony. [read post]
