Search for: "State v. Ness" Results 21 - 40 of 190
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2021, 11:07 am by INFORRM
In the case of Ness v City of Bloomington, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the city’s ordinance banning photography and videorecording in public parks is unconstitutional. [read post]
5 Sep 2020, 12:49 pm by Christian Lautenschleger
Federal law states that simple drug possession is a misdemeanor that can get first-time offenders up to a year in prison. [read post]
15 Dec 2019, 6:57 am by Mike Worgul
Supreme Court Case known as Birchfield v North Dakota offered a strong legal precedent that had been used by many people arrested for suspected DUI. [read post]
7 May 2023, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
Plaintiff's alleged "aware[ness] ... of the availability of administrative review ... did not relieve the agency of its responsibility to advise the [Plaintiff] that such review was available, and of the procedures for securing it (Matter of Orange County Publs. v Kiryas Joel Union Free School Dist., 282 AD2d 604); 8. [read post]
7 May 2023, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
Plaintiff's alleged "aware[ness] ... of the availability of administrative review ... did not relieve the agency of its responsibility to advise the [Plaintiff] that such review was available, and of the procedures for securing it (Matter of Orange County Publs. v Kiryas Joel Union Free School Dist., 282 AD2d 604); 8. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 5:09 pm
United States (Arizona's likely appeal to the Supreme Court of United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 11:26 am by Angela Mauroni
Steven Agee, Paul Victor Niemeyer and Julius Ness Richardson, should view the animus of the travel ban differently than the Supreme Court found in remanding this case and in Trump v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 9:12 am by Cynthia L. Hackerott
In 2003, in Nevada Dept of Human Resources v Hibbs (84 EPD ¶41,391), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity from claims under the FMLA’s family care provision in subparagraph (C). [read post]