Search for: "YOUNG v. STATE" Results 4381 - 4400 of 8,042
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Aug 2014, 10:13 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
: 3-15985Case filed: July 25, 2014Qualifying Judgment/Order: July 25, 2014 08/21/2014 11/19/2014 2014-91 In the Matter of Ernst & Young LLPAdministrative Proceeding File No. [read post]
6 May 2017, 12:00 am by Robert L. Mues
Kentucky took a step closer on April 12, 2017 to making shared parenting in instances of divorce the norm in the state. [read post]
7 Oct 2013, 6:35 am by Lyle Denniston
Solicitor General to offer the federal government’s views on whether the Court should hear six new petitions: 12-1226, Young v. [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 6:16 am by Marcia Coyle
Perhaps in drafting Article V, which sets out the primary paths for amending the Constitution, the Framers intended the process to be difficult but had no idea how difficult it would be when their young nation grew to 50 states and more than 300 million people. [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 11:57 pm
According to the ABA Journal Law News Now, it seems the young man had stated before that committee that he "had little respect for the state court system, and federal courts are the guardians of the Constitution. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm by admin
  Ever since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert v. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 9:03 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 Court watchers equate the Perry case to that of Brown v Board of Education (abolishing the "separate but equal" fallacy in public schools) and Loving v Virginia (holding that a state could not prohibit interracial marriages).Whatever the outcome of the trial, an intermediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit is guaranteed to send this one to the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm by Mary Dwyer
Young 13-95Issue: (1) Whether the state forfeits an argument that Stone v. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 8:52 am
In the Court's view, the strong consensus existing among the Contracting States in this respect is of considerable importance and narrows the margin of appreciation left to the respondent State in the assessment of the permissible limits of the interference with private life in this sphere. [read post]