Search for: "People v. House" Results 4141 - 4160 of 11,170
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Apr 2012, 8:17 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
" Moreover, the massive overall ranges in ideal district size in both houses (Senate: 44.22%; House: 21.57%) reveal that even if Hawaii may exclude this many people, the 2012 Plan still does not pass muster because these ranges far exceed the 10% deviations the Supreme Court has established for presuming a plan is unconstitutional. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 5:09 am
Nearly two weeks have passed since the Department of Justice filed a controversial brief in Smelt v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 2:42 pm by Ross
In many firm cultures I’ve seen from the inside, there is a definite “us” v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 9:53 am by John Mikhail
It also is the ultimate ground of the Court’s holding in McCulloch v. [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 8:36 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
People regularly call it the Octopus. [read post]
Additionally, North Carolina House of Representatives Speaker Tim Moore responded to the petition for rehearing, stating: The people of North Carolina sent a message election day. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 9:19 am by Kent Scheidegger
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures .... [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 5:06 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Daily Journal (subscription required), David Boyle looks at National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. [read post]
7 Jan 2015, 10:10 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Take Our Poll#7 Native American Bar Association NABA will be releasing a report arising out of a survey that over 500 Indian lawyers completed this year, so maybe this posting is a year early. v. #10 Tribal In-House Counsel Association New organization that has the potential to revolutionize the practice of law in Indian country. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 3:52 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
It concerns the changes to the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 and whether they discriminate against disabled people, who may have a need for an additional bedroom by reasons of their disability, in breach of art 14 taken together with art 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR. [read post]