Search for: "State v. So"
Results 5221 - 5240
of 117,809
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Aug 2023, 7:31 am
In Texas v. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 4:06 am
” Funk also did some fight choreography for “Rocky V. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 3:00 am
State Farm Fire & Cas. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 2:03 am
In Restaurant Law Center et al. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 7:04 pm
State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 4:28 pm
The volume on The Common Law Jurisprudence of the Conflict of Laws, edited by Sarah McKibbin (University of Southern Queensland) and Anthony Kennedy (Serle Court), recently published by Hart, does just that, by discussing cases like Vita Food Products, Brook v Brook, Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia, AG v Heinemann Publishers (better known as the Australian Spycatcher case), Bremen v Zapata, Vizcaya v Picard, and Kuwait Airways (Nos 4 and 5). [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 2:50 pm
From Tomlinson v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 12:30 pm
From today's California Court of Appeal opinion in Iloh v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 11:44 am
Co. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 11:35 am
This post is by Carlos Manuel Vázquez, a professor of law at Georgetown Law School. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 11:30 am
In Kennedy v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 10:05 am
In the August 23, 2023 opinion in Moore v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 9:41 am
From Hakim v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 8:58 am
True, Jackson opposed the bank on policy grounds, but he also denied that the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 8:55 am
This is significant in two broad sets of cases: those that rely on history to apply a constitutional rule (as lower courts are doing with the historical-analogical test prescribed by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 8:23 am
And then, in 2017, the famous hiQ Labs, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 6:21 am
Nautica Apparel, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that contrary to the Employee's contention, the record before the hearing officer contained substantial evidence to sustain the findings of misconduct and, citing Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 32 NY3d at 1046, and, contrary to the Employee's assertion, noted that "hearsay statements ... were admissible" in a Civil Service Law §75 administrative disciplinary action. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that contrary to the Employee's contention, the record before the hearing officer contained substantial evidence to sustain the findings of misconduct and, citing Matter of Haug v State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 32 NY3d at 1046, and, contrary to the Employee's assertion, noted that "hearsay statements ... were admissible" in a Civil Service Law §75 administrative disciplinary action. [read post]
24 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
For some policymakers, the repeal of Roe v. [read post]
