Search for: "State v. Means"
Results 5301 - 5320
of 61,300
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Aug 2022, 11:44 am
” United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2016, 8:46 am
by guest blogger Marketa Trimble With the July 14, 2016, decision in Microsoft v. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 4:10 am
But that does not mean we can continue the present, unaffordable pension system, without enacting measures to reduce costs.I have submitted legislation, known as "Tier V," to address these problems by making certain cost-saving changes for new entrants into the public pension system, while still providing a high level of benefits for public retirees. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 9:47 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 2:06 pm
Justice Holmes' dissent in Lochner v. [read post]
5 May 2012, 1:00 pm
The fact that the future sentence has not yet been imposed means that information will often be lacking, and that in turn means that the exercise of such authority would risk confusion and error. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 7:21 am
Accesses [the data] Term given its plain and ordinary meaning Leader Technologies, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court in Boerne v. [read post]
19 Jun 2020, 6:27 am
In Bostock v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 4:37 pm
See, e.g., O’Lone v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 9:38 am
Dukes is having less of an impact at the state level. [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 8:59 am
”[Mayo v. [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 8:04 am
That means that in the third circuit (Pennsylvania, NJ, Delaware and the U.S. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 1:41 pm
Supreme Court decision Serrano v. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 2:50 am
Rossetti Marketing Ltd v Diamond Sofa Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 2482 (QB); [2011] WLR (D) 287 “Whether a party was a commercial agent within the meaning of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the member states relating to self-employed commercial agents or the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 was to be determined by reference to the terms and context of the agreement at the date it was concluded. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 10:35 pm
Prokopi and the forfeiture case of U.S. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 1:52 pm
I'll let you decide whether those different words mean anything different at all, much less are "clearly irreconcilable. [read post]
22 May 2009, 12:48 pm
The Court of Appeals, in Liparoto Construction, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2018, 6:35 pm
The case, Knick v. [read post]
6 Oct 2018, 11:28 am
As a matter of principle, Part I could be excluded if, on facts, the juridical seat is outside India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is a law other than Indian law , as was held in Union of India v. [read post]
