Search for: "Pike v. Pike"
Results 401 - 420
of 420
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2007, 11:50 am
Pike v. [read post]
2 Jul 2007, 9:16 am
And that is where I think the 8th Circuit has gone astray in its discriminatory-purpose-is-enough reasoning in Jones v. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 11:20 am
The case I'm referring to is United Haulers v. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 11:36 am
Todd Meadors and Pike County Sheriff's Department v. [read post]
21 May 2007, 9:08 pm
" The Supreme Court in KSR v. [read post]
19 May 2007, 9:18 pm
The whole deal in the CAFC opinion in KSR v. [read post]
19 May 2007, 10:12 am
AI Index: AMR 51/087/2007 When a capital defendant seeks to circumvent procedures necessary to ensure the propriety of his conviction and sentence, he does not ask the State to permit him to take his own life. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 5:02 pm
Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth., 261 F.3d 245 2d Cir. 2001); and2) the counties' ordinances were valid under the Pike balancing test (United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 1:33 pm
The plurality (in a section not joined by Justice Scalia) then goes on to hold that the trash ordinances survive the test outlined in Pike v. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 3:13 am
Scott v. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 1:32 am
There is a bit of this involved in NTP v. [read post]
2 Mar 2007, 4:01 pm
Charney v. [read post]
25 Feb 2007, 9:15 pm
Drew v. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 8:48 am
See United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 10:18 pm
" In Pike, the Court allowed a five-level guideline increase based only on proof by a preponderance, citing to a pre-Booker case (Riley) in which the defendant agreed that the preponderance standard applied. [read post]
19 Jan 2007, 11:20 am
Pike, No. 05-30528 (1-17-07). [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 3:47 am
Pike, No. 05-30528 (9th Cir. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 3:58 pm
In Monday's oral arguments in No. 05-1345, United Haulers Ass'n v. [read post]
7 Jan 2007, 8:27 am
Instead, a more lenient test that balances burdens against public benefits, as articulated in Pike v. [read post]
26 Jul 2006, 6:01 am
Furthermore, a Pike v. [read post]
