Search for: "Harper v. State"
Results 381 - 400
of 936
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jul 2009, 4:36 pm
Harper and Mendrygal sent us their acceptance speech via email. [read post]
13 Oct 2024, 9:01 pm
As the Supreme Court made clear in the 1946 seminal ruling in Bell v. [read post]
8 Sep 2023, 3:20 pm
Harper. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 9:18 am
Paul v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 9:20 am
Following the House of Lords case of Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group plc in 2003 and amendments to the discrimination legislation made that same year, ex-employees were protected against victimisation by their former employer. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 6:15 am
At Cato@Liberty, Jim Harper discusses Tuesday’s oral argument in Maryland v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 7:29 am
An Indiana federal court decision, Harper v. [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 9:30 pm
A Constitution Day plea for the study of state constitutions (Real Clear Politics). [read post]
10 May 2015, 12:30 am
"Also in the Times is a review of Speak Now: Marriage Equality on Trial: The Story of Hollingsworth v. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 5:01 am
Harper. [read post]
28 Oct 2023, 1:32 pm
Harper (who testified). [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 7:20 pm
Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on Thursday in the case of Al-Zahrani v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 6:45 am
Static Control Components and United States v. [read post]
15 Sep 2022, 3:01 am
Harper: A challenge to the right of state courts to strike down or change legislation governing congressional and presidential elections under the “independent state legislature doctrine. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 6:10 am
United States, which was argued in November. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 7:17 am
The Court found that case to be of retroactive impact in Harper v. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 4:00 am
See Leser v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 10:10 am
How could I have slogged through Pennoyer v. [read post]
4 Sep 2010, 5:43 pm
As the 4th Circuit concluded in its forceful 1997 opinion in Zeran v. [read post]
16 Jul 2010, 3:34 am
While the DeCaro defendants contend that a rescission defense based on unilateral mistake would not have been successful in the underlying action for specific performance, specific performance may be denied based on unilateral mistake [*4]where the other party must have been aware of the mistake (see Da Silva v Musso, 53 NY2d 543, 548; Sheridan Drive-In v State of New York, 16 AD2d 400, 405; Harper, Inc. v City of Newburgh, 159 App Div 695, 696-697). [read post]
