Search for: "State v. Money"
Results 4661 - 4680
of 20,471
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2022, 11:32 am
Crescent Trustees had brought a county court money claim for arrears of service charges. [read post]
14 May 2013, 6:38 am
John V. [read post]
Dispute Over Property Classification and Equitable Division in Memphis Divorce: Luttrell v. Luttrell
20 Feb 2014, 5:25 am
Luttrell v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 10:21 am
United States as exhibit A.) [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 11:45 am
If I were a betting man, my money would, in truth, be on the U.S. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 9:01 pm
In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations.Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. [read post]
29 Mar 2014, 3:47 pm
Harris v. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 5:28 pm
In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 5:59 pm
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will delve into that question in United States v. [read post]
Ind. Courts - More on: COA will hear oral arguments today in dispute over Terre Haute mayor's office
9 Jul 2008, 1:35 pm
Federal law states anyone "employed by a state or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in part" by federal money is subject to the Hatch Act. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 7:49 pm
The state Supreme Court upheld the sentence, concluding that the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in Graham v. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 7:43 am
Wong and United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 10:26 am
Below is a New York Times Piece about Bayou v. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 4:28 am
Ware v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 6:15 am
In Bryan v. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 11:02 am
” Speechnow.org v. [read post]
11 Nov 2016, 8:50 am
Compare State Bank of Bellingham v. [read post]
5 Aug 2024, 4:00 am
" Eventually, in SFFA v. [read post]
23 Aug 2013, 3:51 pm
State law prohibits the taking (read: killing) the baby crabs; i.e., any crab under six and one quarter inches in breadth. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 3:18 am
This is because the CJEU judgment does not require reimbursement of the losses constituted by the unavailability of money. [read post]
