Search for: "People v. District Court of State" Results 521 - 540 of 14,690
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Oct 2023, 2:38 pm by John Elwood
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. and North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation v. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 9:52 am by Yolanda J. Bromfield
In yet another cautionary tale displaying how seriously attorneys and clients must take discovery obligations, United States District Court Judge Beryl A. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 9:52 am by Yolanda J. Bromfield
In yet another cautionary tale displaying how seriously attorneys and clients must take discovery obligations, United States District Court Judge Beryl A. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 9:52 am by Yolanda J. Bromfield
In yet another cautionary tale displaying how seriously attorneys and clients must take discovery obligations, United States District Court Judge Beryl A. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 9:06 pm by Dan Flynn
Did the district court err in determining that Parnell could not establish a presumption of jury prejudice based on adverse pretrial publicity, under Skilling v. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 7:54 am by Sasha Volokh
Even if the District Court were correct to assume that the State Action Doctrine is relevant here, it was wrong to determine that the Authority is not a state actor. [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 2:36 pm by Amy Howe
The district court agreed with Acheson and dismissed the case. [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 3:37 pm by Amy Howe
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, in which North Carolina has asked the justices to decide whether a state law that allows employers to sue employees who make undercover video or audio recordings violates the First Amendment. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 2:55 pm by Kalvis Golde
Thurston 23-138Issues: (1) Whether the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts that state a claim under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; (2) whether, under Section 2, the district court erred in requiring that the plaintiffs allege facts that created a plausible inference that the intent, rather than the effect, of the Arkansas General… [read post]