Search for: "Branch v. State" Results 3981 - 4000 of 8,122
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2015, 6:00 am
 (Under the law of the land, do the other 24 states still face the penalty for not expanding their Medicare eligibility even after NFIB v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 8:01 am by Richard A. Epstein
This modest slap on the wrist is strong evidence that the current conservative Justices will not take on the constitutional status of independent agencies, which were accepted in Humphrey’s Executor v, United States (1935), even though these could be challenged on the ground that the so-called “fourth branch” of government does not fit into the tripartite constitutional structure with its legislative, executive, and judicial branches. [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 7:21 am by Joy Waltemath
The complaint in addition contends that the final rule exceeds Constitutional authorization because under it, “States must pay overtime to State employees that are performing executive, administrative, or professional functions if the State employees earn a salary less than an amount determined by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. [read post]
13 May 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
National/Federal A 49-Year Crusade: Inside the movement to overturn Roe v. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 6:46 am by Graham Smith
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (28 June 2017). [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 6:46 am by Graham Smith
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (28 June 2017). [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 8:35 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
They also drew on the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada Post Corp. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 12:45 pm by Amy Howe
The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which announced earlier this year that it would review both Lamone v. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 4:21 am by Edith Roberts
Supreme Court on April 23, representing the United States in a criminal sentencing case. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 2:39 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Levinson's motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging fraud insofar as asserted against them, for failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7]). [read post]