Search for: "Georgia v. South Carolina"
Results 321 - 340
of 585
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Sep 2013, 9:21 am
On July 24, the attorneys general of Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia sent a letter to the EEOC chair and its commissioners, expressing concern over the agency’s lawsuits challenging the “use of bright-line criminal background checks in the hiring process” at Dollar General and BMW Manufacturing. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 7:41 am
Wexler We previously blogged about the scathing letter sent by the chief legal officers representing the states of Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia to the five Commissioners of the U.S. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 9:01 pm
The death penalty for sodomy eventually was taken off the table, first by New Jersey in 1796, though other states did not act until the mid- to late Nineteenth Century, including South Carolina, which did not repeal its death penalty for homosexuals until 1873. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 9:45 am
LEXIS 126148 (D SC, Sept. 3, 2013), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 6:42 am
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin announced yesterday that she would not immediately sign a warrant for the father’s extradition to South Carolina, where the charges originate; meanwhile, the child remains in Oklahoma. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 6:26 am
Since then, the complaint was amended twice, and a number of states – Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia – joined the case as parties plaintiff and added some refinements to the original causes of action. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 7:05 am
(UTi), which provided logistic services to BMW at its South Carolina facility. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 12:21 pm
Supreme Court case Laird v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 2:47 pm
In doing so, Congress needlessly put a thumb in the Court’s eye by abrogating Georgia v. [read post]
22 May 2013, 1:06 pm
A May 20, 2013 order from the South Carolina Supreme Court in the case of Jim Lancaster v. [read post]
13 May 2013, 7:18 am
Calhoun himself was a Senator appointed by the South Carolina legislature and thus query his loyalty under the indirect election construct: was it to the nation, to the people of South Carolina or to the officials elected to the South Carolina Legislature? [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 6:28 am
Dane FreemanCase number: 10-cv-00701 (United States District Court for the District of South Carolina)Case filed: March 18, 2010Qualifying Judgment/Order: March 1, 2013 4/15/2013 7/15/2013 2013-29 SEC v. [read post]
6 Apr 2013, 11:18 am
Spear; "South Carolina's Grand Jury Presentments: The Eighteenth-Century Experience" by Sally E. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 2:56 am
Roger Abbott, Concurrent Use No. 94002407 (March 20, 2013) [precedential].Applicant ABF provided its services to eight 3 PALMS hotels, one each in California, Georgia, and South Carolina, and five in Florida. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 2:58 am
In fact, the first Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson, wrote in Chisholm v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 5:31 am
On April 3, 2011, at approximately 6:03 a.m. the vehicle departed Dublin, and traveled through North and South Carolina and into Georgia, stopping in Midvale at about 12:33 p.m. [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 11:59 am
LEXIS 24255 (D SC, Feb. 22, 2013), a South Carolina federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2013 U.S. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 1:27 pm
South Carolina’s H. 3060 would repeal mandatory minimums for drug offenses and expand treatment diversion eligibility. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 9:20 am
In the 1966 case of South Carolina v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 7:29 am
First of all, among the photo ID laws passed by covered jurisdictions since 2006, more have been cleared (New Hampshire, Georgia and Michigan) than not (Texas and South Carolina, the latter blocked for the 2012 election only).Second, as a legal matter, amici’s argument relies on a misinterpretation of this Court’s decision in Crawford v. [read post]
