Search for: "Deal v. State"
Results 3141 - 3160
of 26,556
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2020, 3:13 pm
Although you wouldn’t know it from watching the news many of the 677 federal judges in the U.S. are working on cases that don’t deal with how to count votes. [read post]
8 May 2012, 6:25 am
No big deal, right? [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 6:42 am
Shuler v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 3:37 pm
As Ethan recaps and as Paul Ohm indicated (United States v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 9:23 pm
As the third installment in my series of posts dealing with these issues, I have summarized below the rules as they exist as of August 23, 2011 in the eight states in the Midwestern portion of the United States. [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 7:30 am
The president-elect has vowed to nominate justices committed to overturning Roe v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 12:11 pm
[See Denekas v. [read post]
22 May 2015, 1:00 pm
State ex rel. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 12:01 pm
United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2020, 12:59 pm
Constitution and federal statutes dealing with the time for choosing Presidential electors. [read post]
11 Feb 2021, 10:24 am
The case is entitled Centcom Corporation et al. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 8:38 am
On June 25, 2013 the Supreme Court's assessment of the case of Shelby County v. [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 7:56 pm
North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
3 May 2007, 12:50 am
At these meetings, Metro alleges that Essroc stated it could provide Metro with the quality and quantity of cement it needed. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 6:01 am
I have also blogged on the most recent case that had been decided in the District of Massachusetts dealing with the interpretation of the CFAA, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm
Berger Held: When stating a claim for breach of fiduciary duty by the board of directors in a stock-for-stock merger, the duty of profit maximization under Shenker v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 7:39 am
Alabama has enacted a sweeping measure designed to deal with the problem of the large number of persons unlawfully present in the United States and residing in Alabama. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 6:07 am
As their needs remained “unrelated to the size of the property”, it was reasonable for the Secretary of State to deal with them case by case under the DHP scheme (at [62]). [read post]
1 May 2013, 5:24 pm
As reflected here, notwithstanding concurrent state court jurisdiction in the ’33 Act, the Luther v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 1:25 pm
In Pludeman v. [read post]
