Search for: "State v. Daniel Grant" Results 441 - 460 of 1,706
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Apr 2020, 3:55 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required), Daniel Cotter discusses the court’s recent decision in Republican National Committee v. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 7:03 am
Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publ., 2000.Gillett, Grant R. [read post]
11 Apr 2020, 9:23 pm by Eugene Volokh
Justice Daniel Biles joined the majority opinion, but added another reason to reject the LCC's authority: The Kansas Emergency Management Act, he argued, doesn't grant such authority to the LCC, regardless of what a concurrent resolution might say. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 12:04 pm
  And, on balance, the world's a better place with the toy.The district court nonetheless granted summary judgment to Jack Daniels and permanently enjoined the sale of the toy. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 3:47 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required), Daniel Cotter discusses last week’s decision in Comcast v. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 3:50 am by Edith Roberts
” In a column for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin (subscription required), Daniel Cotter “address[es] a rebuke by Chief Justice John G. [read post]
3 Mar 2020, 3:40 am by Edith Roberts
Amy Howe covers the ACA grant for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 4:02 am by Edith Roberts
Today the justices will hear argument in one case, United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 4:05 am by Edith Roberts
At NYU School of Law’s Compliance & Enforcement blog, Daniel Walfish looks at the “legal backdrop” of Liu v. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 3:43 am by Edith Roberts
United States and Thole v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 2:40 pm by Jessica Kroeze
Koleske, Editor, 1995, pages 23-25D6: BYK Additives & Instruments, Product Guide L-G 1, Paint Additives, February 2009D7: WO 2011/084380 A1.V. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am by Joel R. Brandes
It affirmed the order granting respondent’s cross-motion for interim counsel fees to the extent of awarding her $200,000. [read post]