Search for: "State v. Holderness"
Results 4781 - 4800
of 8,246
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Feb 2013, 11:07 am
The ACLU will be at the Supreme Court later this month fighting to uphold the Voting Rights Act in our case, Shelby County v Holder. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 9:20 am
While we know from Reno v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 7:20 am
The following contribution to our Shelby County v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 6:45 am
Another day, another silly brief filed in support of the plaintiff publishers in the Georgia State copyright infringement appeal. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 6:18 am
He argues that “what Georgia — and other states — have done since” the Court’s decision in Atkins v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:58 am
Supreme Court Punts on Costco First Sale Copyright CaseUnited States Supreme Court issued a non-decision in the matter of Costco Wholesale Corporation v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 4:15 am
The case is Michigan Spine & Brain Surgeons v. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 2:55 pm
In South Carolina v. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 2:38 pm
(Apple v. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 1:53 pm
It's about nothing less than the ability of Apple and other patent holders to win permanent injunctions in the United States against direct competitors infringing some of their patents. [read post]
13 Feb 2013, 8:43 am
Holder symposium comes from Daniel P. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 1:34 pm
Plywood Corp. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 6:41 am
State v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 2:22 pm
One of the glaring things revealed by a review of the briefs in Shelby County v. [read post]
11 Feb 2013, 11:44 am
account holder Diana Z., Chicago, IL can retain her aura of mystery thanks to an Appellate Court of Illinois ruling denying a realty management company's efforts to identify the unidentified critic blasting it for charging her rent collection late fees.In Brompton Building, LLC v. [read post]
9 Feb 2013, 8:25 am
(PhoneDog v. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 6:20 am
United States, a challenge to the ban on direct corporate campaign spending in the Federal Campaign Finance Act, and McCutcheon v. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 9:20 pm
Co. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 10:58 am
The CAFC then dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the case to “allow the Board to consider a motion to vacate its decision in the first instance, in accordance with United States Bancorp Mortgage Company v. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 8:56 pm
First, both Holder and the White Paper argue, the individual must pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States. [read post]
