Search for: "Love v. State"
Results 4221 - 4240
of 8,319
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2018, 7:17 am
In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 3:30 am
“I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. [read post]
6 Jul 2009, 4:00 am
Loving Care Agency Inc., App. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 11:40 am
I would love to. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 3:27 am
In State v. [read post]
13 Mar 2010, 3:09 am
The 2d Circuit has affirmed the district court decision in Alexander v. [read post]
19 Sep 2024, 5:12 pm
The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 9:22 am
Just over three weeks after vacating a regulation barring third party employers from claiming the companionship exemption for minimum wage and overtime, in a January 14, 2015 decision in Home Care Association of America v. [read post]
District Court Judge Vacates DOL’s Modified Definition of “Companionship Services” Continue Reading…
16 Jan 2015, 9:22 am
Just over three weeks after vacating a regulation barring third party employers from claiming the companionship exemption for minimum wage and overtime, in a January 14, 2015 decision in Home Care Association of America v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 12:30 pm
Where is their love? [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 11:26 am
Hopkins, and associational discrimination, borrowing principles from Loving v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 4:00 am
Rethinking Same-Sex Marriage Law in Perry v. [read post]
6 Jun 2019, 8:43 pm
Williams held that the en banc Sixth Circuit had already held in United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2022, 7:09 am
To begin with, one familiar nine-time relist is leaving us: Love v. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 11:54 am
" Patterson v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 6:02 pm
Holster v. [read post]
3 Jun 2009, 11:04 am
Beck (2001)Cooper v. [read post]
3 Aug 2024, 11:52 pm
I love my river, but I’m not entirely confident about what Thames Water might have put in it. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 9:03 am
So holds the Ohio Court of Appeals in S.E. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2006, 8:54 am
Along the way, I suggest that it would be much more problematic for the Court, in the name of the Fourteenth Amendment, to require states to recognize same-sex unions than it was for the Court in 1967, in Loving v. [read post]
