Search for: "State ex rel. Jackson v. Circuit Court" Results 21 - 40 of 73
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Aug 2010, 8:28 am by Paul Bland
  Unlike European countries which mostly rely on large and powerful government agencies to enforce consumer protection and civil rights laws, the U.S. has relatively small government agencies which handle relatively few cases. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:49 am by Public Employment Law Press
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 20–1199. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:49 am by Public Employment Law Press
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 20–1199. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 6:00 am by Josh Blackman
As I noted on Lawfare, the court ignored the most relevant precedent, United States ex rel. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am by Bernard Bell
  The second was the Ninth Circuit’s less demanding “appearance and function” test, Garnier v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 11:10 am by Orin Kerr
The circuit split leads to cert petitions: Litigants who have lost at the lower courts because the circuit law was against them will ask the Supreme Court to change the law and recognize that their circuit law is wrong. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 6:00 am by John Ehrett
Casey regardless of the geographical availability of abortion services in adjoining states in light of the equal protection principle articulated in Missouri ex rel. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 11:24 am by John Elwood
United States ex rel. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 11:24 am by John Ehrett
Casey regardless of the geographical availability of abortion services in adjoining states in light of the equal protection principle articulated in Missouri ex rel. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 12:05 pm by John Elwood
Circuit misapplied this Court's decision in Holland v. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 12:13 pm by John Elwood
The petition asks if an appellate court violates Strickland v. [read post]