Search for: "State v. Burden"
Results 3821 - 3840
of 22,139
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2018, 10:15 am
Taylor v. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 7:25 am
In a brief opinion, the court stated that the government does not violate the First Amendment when “it does not in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 6:41 pm
In his report the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, presents guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of economic reforms, which set out the human rights principles and standards that apply to States, international financial institutions and creditors when designing, formulating or… [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 5:00 am
United States of America v. [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 8:18 am
Guglielmino v McKee Foods Corporation, No. 05-16144 (9th Cir. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:11 pm
467/08, Padawan SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) had just been uploaded on to the Curia website. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 5:10 am
Aqua Products Results in De-designation of Previous Amendment Precedent In view of the decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 4:23 pm
In Perdue v. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 5:28 am
In Thompson v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 9:53 am
In Perez v. [read post]
10 Aug 2018, 2:20 pm
The RSIB states that the Louisiana Sales and Use Tax Commission for Remote Sellers (the “Commission”) “will not seek to enforce any sales or use tax collection obligation on remote sellers based on United States Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 4:00 am
This type of provision, however, has survived in a number of collective bargaining agreement [see New York State Off. of Mental Health v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 53 A.D.3d 887].* Pursuant to OATH Rule of Practice section 1-49(d), respondent had requested that "Anonymous" be used in reporting this decision. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 5:29 pm
Several years ago, in United States v. [read post]
12 Oct 2017, 3:39 am
Barclays Capital Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 8:37 am
Held v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 5:30 am
Abshire v. [read post]
30 Nov 2020, 12:41 pm
Kolarik II, “Implications of the Supreme Court’s Historic Decision in Wayfair,” State Tax Notes, July 9, 2018, p. 125. [4] See, e.g., Bridges v. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 11:53 am
South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. [read post]
29 Jan 2008, 4:50 am
In Lyman v. [read post]
10 Mar 2007, 2:20 pm
Special master Michael Patrick King ruled, in State v. [read post]
