Search for: "State v. Forty"
Results 341 - 360
of 2,712
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2013, 9:30 pm
For example, State v. [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 4:10 am
In American Humanist Association v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 12:46 pm
Murray v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 12:26 pm
As most readers of this blog likely know, yesterday the Supreme Court held in Rucho v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 1:30 pm
In Mendez v May, 2015 WL 143965 (D. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 9:13 am
The appeals court stated it had no choice but to affirm. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 7:22 am
Take HHS v. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 8:23 am
State, 610 So.2d 1288 (Fla.1992); Segal v. [read post]
28 Sep 2008, 4:44 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:22 am
For example, Russia in 2008 "identified forty-two 'strategic' economic sectors in which restrictions applied for foreign investment" (109). [read post]
6 Oct 2018, 11:28 am
As a matter of principle, Part I could be excluded if, on facts, the juridical seat is outside India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is a law other than Indian law , as was held in Union of India v. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 1:09 pm
In this split decision involving the renewal of forty-one water supply contracts by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation the majority affirms the district court in determining that the contracts do not violate § 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act and illegally threatens the existence of the delta smelt. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 12:07 pm
The two leading cases specifying the “compelling state interest” test – Holt v. [read post]
6 Mar 2013, 1:02 pm
The officials filed a petition Monday in the case of Cline v. [read post]
18 May 2011, 11:37 am
Ironically named, Perry v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 6:44 am
Brown) plaintiffs on unqualified right-to-marry grounds would be sweeping, effectively invalidating the laws of the forty-five states that exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 8:52 am
In the Court's view, the strong consensus existing among the Contracting States in this respect is of considerable importance and narrows the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State in the assessment of the permissible limits of the interference with private life in this sphere. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 5:17 pm
After an hour of oral arguments today in Green v. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 5:01 am
Anthony List v. [read post]
