Search for: "Clements v. State"
Results 381 - 400
of 808
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2013, 9:54 am
The argument in Bond v. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 3:08 am
That is the question before the Court this morning in Bond v. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 9:04 pm
Clement of the Washington law firm of Bancroft PLLC, and representing the federal government and defending that power will be U.S. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 1:25 pm
United States v. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 12:24 pm
Troice; Proskauer Rose LLP v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 4:28 am
Judge Jolly wrote one dissent, joined by Judges Jones, Smith, DeMoss, Clement, and Owen, asserting that the EEOC failed to proffer a basis for inferring discriminatory intent based on the employee’s gender. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 8:10 pm
Citing this letter, Clement told the Court that what made this expansion so coercive was that Congress was tying “the states’ willingness to accept these new funds . . . to their entire participation in” Medicaid. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 11:58 am
According to the Los Angeles Times, Nick was a highly regarded high school athlete at San Clemente High School. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 8:48 am
Clement v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:40 am
(Ilya Somin) A little over a year has passed since the Supreme Court’s momentous decision in NFIB v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 1:45 pm
Most Volokh readers know that, and the Fifth Circuit holds (following Smith v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 12:32 pm
Roberts would also represent a number of states in the Microsoft antitrust case, United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 11:11 am
Sharp and the Supreme Court’s 1967 opinion in Loving v. [read post]
30 Jun 2013, 12:17 am
(Similar concerns surrounded the use of ancestry in Rice v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 12:53 am
The Court stated that a common sense inference of “but for” causation from proof of negligence usually flows without difficulty. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:25 pm
Moreno, Cleburne v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 10:05 am
Romer v. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 8:32 am
(E.g., Paul Clement: "And if you want to see the problems with their position, look at Joint Appendix page 437. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 9:34 am
Lubin, 122 F. 240 (1903).See Mazer v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm
Then, in 2012, in Clements v. [read post]
