Search for: "ILLINOIS v. MICHIGAN" Results 441 - 460 of 952
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jul 2014, 11:00 am by Karen Tani
Earlier this year we noted a conference on "The Law and the Child in Historical Perspective," co-sponsored by the University of Minnesota Law School and History Department, the Childhood and Youth Studies Across the Disciplines IAS Research Collaborative at the University of Minnesota, the Indiana University School of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Law School and History Department, the University of Illinois College of Law, the University of Michigan Law… [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 9:43 am
The court undertook a state-by-state analysis of all 22 states – Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida (citing a case we sent to Westlaw), Georgia, Illinois (rejecting Dolin v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 2:18 pm by Hanni Fakhoury
In 2010, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals—which includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee—ruled in United States v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 8:36 am by WIMS
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions   <> In Defense of Animals v. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 12:22 pm by Brenda Fulmer
Under current law, as confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the Pliva v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 12:41 pm
Another variant is "authorized (with or without adjectives) (Illinois, Michigan, Tennessee, Virginia), or alternatively "authorized or approved" (Kentucky). [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 4:21 pm by Robert B. Milligan
Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota, and Connecticut considered bills that would provide certain limitations on non-compete agreements but they were not adopted. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 6:30 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Archer-Daniels-Midland CompanyCase number: 13-cv-02279 (United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois)Case filed: December 20, 2013Qualifying Judgment/Order: January 21, 2014 02/24/2014 05/25/2014 2014-17 SEC v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 7:44 am by WIMS
<> CERCLA Contribution; The Confusion Continues - In the words of Justice Thomas in United States v. [read post]