Search for: "State v. State Board of Higher Education"
Results 321 - 340
of 828
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Sep 2021, 10:01 am
His first principle — "no compelled speech, thought, or belief" — reminds us of the important precedent set by West Virginia State Board of Education v. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 6:37 am
In March 2020, all Pennsylvania institutions of higher education discontinued their in-person instruction. [read post]
4 Feb 2021, 6:00 am
Social science was the stated difference between Brown’s (1954) rejection of Jim Crow education and Plessy v. [read post]
28 Jul 2023, 11:45 pm
Even though Brown v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 8:36 am
Maryland State Board of Elections (No. 02-C-11-163050)). [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 10:32 am
State Bd. of Educ. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 9:01 am
To understand how we got to Janus v. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 10:01 am
In Tatel v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 10:53 am
With the Obama Administration construing the United States Supreme Court’s King v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 7:01 am
In AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 6:07 am
Most don’t and it’s not mandatory.The formula that generates this result was agreed to by AUCC in 2007 when the 2003 pre- CCH v. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 6:01 am
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 11:29 am
See e.g., Pfeil v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 2:11 pm
Barton is a consultant to the Texas State Board of Education and so the board quickly took his advice on revising the state’s history books. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 4:00 am
Shoolestani v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 3:19 pm
Texas: public institutions of higher education may not prohibit licensed carry on campus. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 6:06 am
The province-wide estimates from the BC Campus are even higher, with student savings of nearly $10 million, almost 100,000 B.C. students using open textbooks, and nearly 500 faculty adopting the open textbooks. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 5:55 am
Board of Education. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 10:27 pm
• The formula that generates this result was agreed to by AUCC in 2007 when the 2003 pre- CCH v. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 5:59 am
The ICWA and the federal regulations explicitly state that Awhere applicable State or other Federal law provides a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian than the protection accorded under the Act, ICWA requires the State or Federal court to apply the higher State or Federal standard@ (25 CFR 23.106; see 25 USC ' 1921). [read post]
