Search for: "Baker v. People" Results 501 - 520 of 1,150
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Aug 2017, 11:13 am
 It's one that recurs -- particularly (as here) in the nursing home context, where I imagine a nontrivial number of people die within a month of being admitted. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 8:39 am by Neil Burns
The Bankruptcy Court Rules Against A Deceptive Attorney In a ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, entitled Baker v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 8:39 am by Neil Burns
The Bankruptcy Court Rules Against A Deceptive Attorney In a ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, entitled Baker v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 8:39 am by Neil Burns
The Bankruptcy Court Rules Against A Deceptive Attorney In a ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, entitled Baker v. [read post]
9 Jul 2017, 2:56 am by NCC Staff
New York (17 Apr 1905) ―Lochner, a baker from New York, was convicted of violating the New York Bakeshop Act, which prohibited bakers from working more than 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 1:29 pm by Alex Potcovaru
Stewart Baker posted the Steptoe Cyberlaw Podcast. [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 8:40 pm by Dale Carpenter
” When certain people see a married gay couple their thoughts drift to sodomy. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 5:02 am by Michael Broyde
Take, for example, the 1999 case of Encore Productions, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 4:38 am by Edith Roberts
” Constitution Daily’s We the People podcast features a discussion of the 50th anniversary of Loving v. [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 4:22 am by Edith Roberts
Baker,” which enabled him “to participate in the case instead of recusing. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 12:47 pm by Matthew Kahn
The Fourth Circuit ruled last week in IRAP v. [read post]
12 May 2017, 8:00 am by Nicholas Aroney and John Kincaid
In cases concerning legislative district apportionment, American decisions such as Baker v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 1:49 pm by Helen Klein Murillo
Steve Vladeck and Benjamin Wittes argued that important caveats to the Nixon v. [read post]