Search for: "In INTEREST OF FEW v. State"
Results 4281 - 4300
of 11,572
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Feb 2008, 10:45 am
If facially neutral (2) use Pike Balancing - (a) Does the state have a legitimate interest in the regulation? [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 12:19 pm
The result is clear: The interests of living, breathing, resource-limited individuals can almost always trump those of the abstract, vastly powerful, and wealthy State. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 1:45 pm
[3] Portland Golf Club v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 6:30 am
McCabe (concluding that the classification of marijuana was not rational); State v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
This time, we have to admit, there’s no obvious winner, since the year passed without a United States Supreme Court decision from our area of interest to top our tree. [read post]
6 Feb 2016, 12:00 am
State of Maryland). [read post]
4 Apr 2010, 11:28 pm
Sudeer v. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 7:57 am
On April 3, 2024, in the case of Li v. [read post]
23 May 2010, 8:34 am
These have included approval of sobriety roadblocks (Sitz v. [read post]
7 Dec 2008, 9:35 am
State of Hawaii, No. 28175; the UFO Chuting case mentioned above; the Supreme Court's regulatory takings case on Hawaii's gas station rent control law, Lingle v. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
I asked a judge in Beijing (my wife assisting as interpreter) his views of the judiciary’s state of independence. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 4:53 pm
In NTL COLLEGIATE STNDT LN TRUST 2005-1 v. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 4:06 am
The cases, however, differ in a few respects. [read post]
3 May 2012, 7:13 am
(See McCollum v. [read post]
1 Dec 2022, 6:43 am
” The production company for the Shore series also had a few casting calls at the Flora-Bama. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 11:24 am
State v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:54 pm
The case has a lot of interesting tidbits – including some buried in footnotes — and I hope to point out a few of them in an upcoming post. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 3:30 am
See United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 4:02 pm
Next the Court clarifies that the taxation data of 1.2 million natural persons were made public by the applicant media, and that most of the data concerned private persons, and only “very few, were individuals with a high net income, public figures or well-known personalities within the meaning of the Court’s case-law”. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 5:50 pm
State AG offices HAT [read post]
