Search for: "DAVIE v. STATE"
Results 3441 - 3460
of 5,642
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Oct 2012, 5:41 am
Lanny Davis: For the Record. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 9:46 pm
The paper is forthcoming in the University of California – Davies Law Review. [read post]
18 May 2012, 3:43 pm
The case is Port v. [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 6:23 am
Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985). [read post]
20 Sep 2018, 6:23 am
Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985). [read post]
2 Aug 2020, 4:58 am
Some state statutes limited the coverage for workers’ compensation to diseases that manifested within a certain time window during and after employment. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 9:48 am
Davis, 126 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1997). [read post]
20 May 2008, 2:09 am
Davis, a 7-2 majority of the Court held that the Commerce Clause does not prohibit a state from giving a tax preference to its citizens who own that state's bonds over its citizens who own another state's bonds. [read post]
16 May 2020, 6:30 am
And as Buckley points out, the case that presented the greatest challenge in this regard was Confederate President Jefferson Davis’s treason prosecution.The Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. [read post]
20 May 2009, 7:44 am
Davis v. [read post]
10 Dec 2024, 4:00 am
It appears that Johnston was not keen on becoming the Jefferson Davis of the left, so he backpedaled, stating, “Would I have taken it back if I could? [read post]
9 Feb 2008, 3:44 am
Davis, 46 M.J. 551 (N-M. [read post]
26 Oct 2014, 8:23 pm
Consideration of Hamdi v. [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 3:50 am
In Banister v. [read post]
21 May 2018, 10:42 am
The chief justice (of the United States, that is), then announces that Justice Neil Gorsuch has the opinion of the court in Epic Systems Corp. v. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 9:06 pm
” See Davis v. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 6:11 am
Further, the Scarborough decision cites to Davis v. [read post]
23 Jul 2021, 6:06 am
Silk, Sabastian V. [read post]
1 Mar 2022, 9:00 pm
Davis v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 10:05 am
It seemed clear, last June, when the Court ordered a halt to the subsidies, that at least a majority of the Court thought the system might run afoul of the Justices’ 5-4 decision in Davis v. [read post]
