Search for: "State v House"
Results 4301 - 4320
of 28,763
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2021, 11:32 am
In a 2016 case, Castro-Ramirez v. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 11:06 am
Lenders were found to have violated Regulation Z by: Compensating loan originators differently based on product type, specifically lower compensation for bond program loans subject to state Housing Finance Agency requirements, and higher compensation for construction loans. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 8:10 am
Attorney Gen. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 6:15 am
Linovitz Capo Shores, LLC v California Coastal Commission, 65 Cal. [read post]
6 Jul 2021, 5:51 am
In doing so, the Court looked at the VRA with fresh eyes, devising a legal standard that gives additional leeway to states that have imposed voting restrictions in recent years.The case is Brnovich v. [read post]
4 Jul 2021, 6:43 am
” Swank v. [read post]
4 Jul 2021, 6:41 am
State Dickinson School of Law. [read post]
3 Jul 2021, 9:24 pm
The 6-3 decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. [read post]
3 Jul 2021, 5:25 pm
Ohio v. [read post]
3 Jul 2021, 10:26 am
The statute contains viewpoint and content-based restrictions to speech which are subject to strict scrutiny as per prior precedent like Reed v. [read post]
3 Jul 2021, 6:19 am
Bar Assoc. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 11:33 pm
Finally, if the Court is serious about overruling Kelo, it should also overrule Hawaii Housing Authority v. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 9:30 pm
Susette Kelo's famous "little pink house," which became a nationally known symbol of the case that bears her name. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 1:53 pm
Carter v. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 12:47 pm
Additional Resources: Gross v. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 10:03 am
The United States contracts with them to house unlawful immigrants pending deportation proceedings. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 8:06 am
(Discussed with its conseqeunce for state liability with respect to the conduct of their SOEs HERE). [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
As neither of the third parties had dealt with the Secretary of State, the claim could only succeed if the court said that the dealing requirement did not form part of the ratio of OBG or departed from that case (which, incidentally, was one of three cases dealt with together by the House of Lords, one of the others being better-known to IP lawyers: Douglas v Hello!). [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am
As neither of the third parties had dealt with the Secretary of State, the claim could only succeed if the court said that the dealing requirement did not form part of the ratio of OBG or departed from that case (which, incidentally, was one of three cases dealt with together by the House of Lords, one of the others being better-known to IP lawyers: Douglas v Hello!). [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 1:51 am
The appellants’ first alternative, which involves leaving the law as stated in OBG but without a dealing requirement, would dispense with the control mechanism which the House of Lords considered to be both necessary and desirable. [read post]
