Search for: "State v. Freedom of Information Commission" Results 301 - 320 of 1,703
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Oct 2018, 11:50 am by Adam Feldman
Multiple states have Religious Freedom Restoration Act laws in place that protect religious liberty under a strict-scrutiny standard. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 11:38 am by Erwin Chemerinsky
Federal Election Commission (2014); Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 11:00 pm by Catriona Murdoch
The Judge, however, stated he was quite satisfied that there was no evidence of a set up. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 5:08 am by Bernard Bell
Pozen, Freedom of Information Beyond the Freedom of Information Act, 165 U. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 4:49 am by Bernard Bell
” Interested members of the public and scientific community could then obtain such records from NMFS under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 3:02 am by INFORRM
Nine days later Pihl posted a comment on the blog in reply to the above comment and blog post about him, stating that the information in the blog post and comment was wrong and should immediately be removed. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 11:23 am by Lauren Bateman
Williams will hear oral arguments in Aamer v. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 11:10 pm
The Commission had merely stated that the Safe Harbour scheme was acceptable under the principles set out by the Data Protection Directive, without analyzing whether the US data protection legislation as such offered the adequate level of protection to EU citizens. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 3:54 pm by NARF
United States Department of the Interior (Mineral Royalties; State Intervention) Alturas Indian Rancheria v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 6:38 am by Cecilia Marcela Bailliet
  Will they provide information on any child-specific measures they may take in conjunction with their obligation to prevent genocide? [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 4:15 pm by lcampbell@lawbc.com
  The Court found that the Prop 65 warning for glyphosate is misleading, and therefore does not directly advance the interest of the state in informing consumers regarding potential cancer hazards, and that the asserted state interest could be effectively advanced by other measures that do not burden freedom of speech in the same manner. [read post]
27 May 2015, 3:28 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [read post]