Search for: "GROUP v. STATE"
Results 3261 - 3280
of 37,532
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2024, 9:31 pm
Sorting Fact From Fiction Murthy v Missouri started out as Missouri v Biden, a complaint filed with the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against President Joe Biden, several federal agencies, and government officials. [read post]
8 Jan 2007, 7:07 am
Thirty-six other states and various tobacco control and anti-smoking groups support the Maine appeal. [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 4:49 pm
While some groups had early success, United States District Court Judge Dolly Gee denied a request by Uber and Postmates to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of AB 5 against them while their constitutional challenge to the law plays out, in Olson, et al. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 2:04 pm
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 9:57 am
Already a group named the Coalition for Patent Fairness sent in a press release that it "welcomes" the Supreme Court review of the case of KSR International v. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 3:00 am
Last week, a group calling themselves The Yes Men apparently perpetrated an elaborate hoax to usurp the corporate persona of the United States Chamber of Commerce, to the point of publishing a fake website and holding a press conference at the National Press Club, posing as the Chamber itself. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 2:30 pm
” In Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 7:22 am
Nicholas Medniuk, Neil Beighton and Simon Kilgour, who work within the insurance and reinsurance group at CMS, comment on the decision handed down in the matter of R&S Pilling t/a Phoenix Engineering (Respondent) v UK Insurance Ltd [2019] UKSC 16, which concerns the question of when a motor insurer will not be liable for third party property damage. [read post]
23 May 2016, 11:40 am
" Lozano v. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 8:43 am
In Gwiazdowski v. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 1:00 pm
For what it's worth, I agree with the five-member rat pack led by Justice Ginsberg as opposed to the equally crazy group led by Chief Justice Roberts (and joined by Justices Stevens, Breyer, and Alito) in dissent. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 11:53 am
Circuit’s Guantanamo detention saga: Suleiman v. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 4:24 am
Chamber of Commerce's lawsuit against the NLRB, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 10:07 am
[cite to Donato v. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 5:31 am
The new rules effect a substantial number of potential applicants and have obvious disproportionate effects within the various regions of the UK given widely divergent average income levels and for women and certain ethnic groups where there is disparity in pay levels. [read post]
5 Oct 2006, 12:10 pm
Plaintiffs, national and state advocacy groups for the blind, claimed that defendant's website (Target.com) is inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the ADA and similar California state laws. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 2:27 pm
Instead, EFF and the ACLU point to a series of recent key decisions—including the Supreme Court decisions in United States v. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 4:23 pm
The blogger was found guilty for “having publicly committed actions aimed at inciting hatred and enmity and humiliating the dignity of a group of persons on the grounds of their membership of a social group”. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 7:08 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Djanogly v Westminster City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 432 (19 April 2011) ZZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 440 (19 April 2011) Thorne v Courtier & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 460 (19 April 2011) CMA- CGM Marseille v Petro Broker International [2011] EWCA Civ 461 (19 April 2011) Sandhu (t/a Isher Fashions UK) v Jet Star Retail Ltd & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 459 (19 April 2011) Beedles… [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 6:50 am
That's what Chief Justice Rehnquist did in Locke v. [read post]
