Search for: "State v. First Judicial District Court" Results 5421 - 5440 of 9,085
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Sep 2014, 11:20 am by Dennis Crouch
Cir. 2009), cited by the district court, compelsa contrary conclusion. [read post]
”[22] While Virginia Pharmacy found that commercial speech is entitled to at least some level of First Amendment protection, the level of judicial review was not articulated until a few years later in the seminal case Central Hudson v. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 4:26 am by Kevin LaCroix
NOMURA ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION et al, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 06-10446-RGS. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Snapping a remarkable winning streak for plaintiffs challenging state bans, Feldman’s ruling was the first decision by a federal court upholding a state SSM ban since the Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 11:15 am by Joy Waltemath
However, the court reversed the lower court’s denial of leave to amend the complaint to include additional plaintiffs’ discrimination claims under the Rehab Act and the ADA (Barkley v United States Marshals Service, September 5, 2014, Srinivasan, S). [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 8:43 pm
On August 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed itself and ruled in the case of Boley v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 7:43 pm by Ted Smith
On August 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed itself and ruled in the case of Boley v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 1:30 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  “The Book” is the most widely used and judicially recognized real estate treatise in California and is cited by practicing attorneys and courts throughout the state. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 6:00 am by Jon Robinson
  First of all, the Third Circuit made clear in its en banc decision in Dunn v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 5:50 am by Dennis Crouch
In this case, Federal Circuit Judge Bryson – sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Texas – has determined on the pleadings that Loyalty’s reward-program patent is ineligible based upon the recent Supreme Court cases of Alice Corporation Pty. [read post]