Search for: "Grant v. State"
Results 3541 - 3560
of 68,490
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2023, 3:09 am
The Judge granted the certificate and the Supreme Court subsequently granted permission to appeal. [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 1:24 am
First, FTC v. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 9:04 pm
After an unsuccessful direct appeal, United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 7:07 pm
He then proceeds to introduce the case that brings us all to the Miami federal courthouse—or, rather, that brought us here 27 hours ago: The United States of America v. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 5:26 pm
The Washington Supreme Court held in State v. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 12:38 pm
., et al. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 11:17 am
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion. [read post]
Former North Dakota women’s health clinic files amended complaint challenging statewide abortion ban
13 Jun 2023, 11:02 am
The Supreme Court overturned Roe with Dobbs v. [read post]
13 Jun 2023, 10:48 am
Mahl v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 1:45 pm
Trevino, Gonzalez asks the justices to grant review and reverse the 5th Circuit’s ruling. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 1:09 pm
Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall, “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications,” 109 Proc. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 8:30 am
United States Dep't of Hous. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 8:17 am
Lyons v. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 9:01 pm
Case Co. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 6:09 pm
Ernst[1] As Dennis reported, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of Vidal v. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 4:21 pm
Relying on United States Supreme Court precedent in Story Parchment Co. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 8:14 am
Sherman v. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 7:19 am
A concurring opinion went even further: While I agree with the result reached, I write to state that there is a separate reason the trial court should not have granted a directed verdict. [read post]
11 Jun 2023, 6:00 am
For example, Mathews v. [read post]
10 Jun 2023, 11:37 pm
The High Court judgment is particularly welcome in terms of how explicitly it states that the ECHR requires reading domestic legislation to recognise non-religious beliefs and in how it debunks many of the objections often given for extending protection in this way. [read post]
