Search for: "Victory v. State"
Results 301 - 320
of 6,913
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2023, 11:27 am
O’Handley v. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 8:56 am
The Court found that DOJ’s failure to issue regulations implicated the holding in United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 1:00 pm
The decision in Dahlia v. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 7:58 am
In Davila v. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 8:49 pm
United States and Kahn v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 12:43 pm
Victory Center v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:56 am
Calabotta v. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 4:10 am
Ct., March 23, 2023), a New York state trial court gave a partial victory to Orthodox Jewish day schools (yeshivas) that are challenging the state's "substantial equivalency" regulations. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 8:24 am
The case, U.S. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2018, 12:35 pm
Referring to United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 11:41 am
To the victories! [read post]
21 Apr 2022, 2:30 pm
Justice Elena Kagan authored the unanimous nine-page opinion in Cassirer v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 5:16 pm
A few weeks ago, Bob Lawless called the Supreme Court’s decision in Schwab v. [read post]
15 Jun 2008, 4:13 pm
We are not the Hatfields and the McCoys.Occasionally, even the innovators can be pleased when the generics win a victory -- at least when the case doesn't involve intellectual property, but rather the preemption defense.On Friday, June 13, Perrigo Pharmaceuticals picked off a nice preemption victory in Gaeta v. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 4:34 am
Last week, in Lawson v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 6:39 am
Click here to download a copy of the decision in Roe v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 6:04 am
The state won 100 percent of the time, which isn’t surprising given that only the state was allowed to present any evidence and all of that evidence was submitted secretly to the judge. [read post]
22 Jun 2016, 10:22 am
According to the opinion in State v. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 7:57 pm
Initially, the State was seeking a felony with jail time. [read post]
18 May 2015, 11:59 am
For a United States court to do so was anathema to the principles underlying the First Amendment. [read post]