Search for: "Baker v. State"
Results 401 - 420
of 2,914
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Oct 2018, 9:59 am
Invoking language from the majority’s decision in Obergefell v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 9:00 pm
At 253 (3), which has been expanded to require that “'supervisors had a legitimate purpose'” Baker v. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 10:06 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 1:25 pm
It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included "wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory," featured "language and images [the baker] deemed hateful," or displayed a message the baker "deemed as discriminatory, Jack v. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 9:01 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 9:00 pm
RLUIPA is the statute enacted to apply to state prisons and land use following Boerne v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 9:00 pm
RLUIPA is the statute enacted to apply to state prisons and land use following Boerne v. [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 5:17 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 12:32 pm
First, he concluded that the summary Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. [read post]
26 May 2014, 9:01 pm
Four years earlier, in Baker v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 9:53 am
Carr, but Baker v. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 12:56 pm
” In all, there were “more than seventy legislative and congressional reapportionment lawsuits filed in forty states in the aftermath of Baker v. [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 4:11 am
Briefly: Subscript offers a graphic explainer for Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
27 Sep 2024, 6:46 am
Hutson In Baker v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 4:10 am
In Baker v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 4:15 am
In Varnum v. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 4:08 am
” Slate’s Amicus podcast features a discussion of Gill v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 3:03 pm
This morning the Court heard oral argument in King v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 2:25 pm
CAAF has released its opinion in United States v. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 2:37 pm
In Case C-228/03 Gillette Co v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy, the CJEU stated that use that does not create an impression of commercial connection or take unfair advantage of the earlier mark’s distinctive character or repute will be considered honest practice. [read post]
