Search for: "State v. Backer"
Results 461 - 480
of 553
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2011, 5:34 pm
By Mike Dorf The unanimity of result in the Supreme Court's decision in Nevada Comm'n on Ethics v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 9:32 pm
Representative Luis V. [read post]
23 May 2011, 9:25 am
Two decades before Smith, Wisconsin v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 7:57 pm
District Judge James Ware of San Francisco, who took over the case of Perry v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 12:35 pm
But not everyone saw the effects of this new technology as benign: some saw the prophesied erosion of state power as an invitation to anarchy, or as opening the door to the very evils that the state power was being deployed to prevent. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 7:00 pm
In Perry v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 5:05 pm
The paper regarded McBride as “blatantly unsuited” for the position, “unless his backers support the dubious philosophy: get a criminal to catch a criminal”. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 2:02 pm
The trial went forward without broadcast, but with the proceedings videotaped; in August, Judge Walker struck down the ballot measure under the federal Constitution; the case is now pending on appeal in the Ninth Circuit (Perry, et al., v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 2:29 pm
Bennett, et al. (10-238) and McComish, et al., v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 11:14 am
The Ninth Circuit is waiting for the California Supreme Court to provide it with some legal advice on a question of state law that may influence whether anyone can continue to defend in court the validity of the marriage ban — that is, whether the backers of the ban can defend it since state officials have refused to do so. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 10:48 am
Siegel's Direct Nutrititonals, LLC v. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 7:47 pm
Moreover, “state insurance department staff levels declined 11% in 2007 while premium volume increased 12%. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 11:02 am
That decision, James City County v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 4:01 pm
That ruling was in a 1997 case, Arizonans for Official English v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 11:13 pm
S is for State Farm, which challenged the constitutionality of Canadian privacy law. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 4:22 pm
s backers might fare on that issue. [read post]
15 Nov 2010, 2:25 pm
The case is Perry, et al., v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 1:43 pm
Supreme Court in AT&T v. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 8:04 am
At BlawgIT, Brett Trout writes about the AMP v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 8:12 pm
In 1972, in Furman v. [read post]
