Search for: "STATE V. POWERS"
Results 5261 - 5280
of 41,384
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2011, 6:44 am
Just as Loving v. [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 9:41 am
The lawsuit is Oz. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 3:09 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Dec 2015, 9:30 pm
In New York v. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 3:03 pm
In a 1984 decision called Jarvis Clark Co. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court—in Hughes v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 7:21 pm
In Padilla v. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 11:49 am
The Case of R. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 4:17 pm
., et al. v. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 12:21 pm
People v. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 4:09 am
See United States v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 7:49 am
The Haro v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Hewlett v. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 1:42 pm
The scope of federal power to limit federal enforcement of state law by statute should be broader, however, than the scope of state power to limit state enforcement of federal law. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 2:43 am
They did this exercising the power under the Terrorism Act 2000, sch 7, para 2. [read post]
5 Aug 2022, 10:14 am
Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 11:24 am
Therefore, enactment of sections 500 and 517 of the Retirement and Social Security Law triggered that condition and represented an overt act by the State to exercise a reserved power by making the Teachers' Retirement System contributory, thereby terminating the contractual relationship obligating the State to underwrite teacher membership in any optional retirement plan. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 11:24 am
Therefore, enactment of sections 500 and 517 of the Retirement and Social Security Law triggered that condition and represented an overt act by the State to exercise a reserved power by making the Teachers' Retirement System contributory, thereby terminating the contractual relationship obligating the State to underwrite teacher membership in any optional retirement plan. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 7:34 am
In his motion, Rueda argued that Rule 50 of the AAA states that the arbitrator is not empowered to re-determine the merits of any claim already decided and that because Judge Davison had initially ruled in his favor, Judge Davidson had no power to issue his subsequent decision. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 12:26 am
Marshall Draws the Line Against Incremental Erosion of Article III Judicial Power. [read post]
