Search for: "Voter v. Voter"
Results 5461 - 5480
of 6,769
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Aug 2010, 6:25 pm
Now comes section 11301 which (I’ve said this all before) supersedes the laws implemented by the CUA and MMPA because it is an initiative of the people (thus not susceptible to being struck down as a portion of the MMPA was in People v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 3:42 pm
” Clayworth v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 7:56 am
Brownlow, No. 08-0551 (DDB); When a law firm must be disqualified because it hired a legal assistant who worked at an opposing law firm (when “reasonable steps” are not taken to shield them from the matter, as was not here) (In re Columbia Health; Whether a water authority must seek voter approval for “every” bond election (here, at least, yes): Kirby Lake Development, Ltd. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 12:12 pm
When Brown v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 3:23 am
Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2009) and Int’l Airport Centers LLC v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 8:09 pm
The other races I was watching were: The Republican gubernatorial slugfest: boring apparatchik Bill McCollum v. crazy dangerous mega-millionaire Rick Scott: with 72% of the votes counted, Scott is ahead 47-43. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 4:02 pm
Anthony Kline and James Lambden concurred in Arntz v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 3:53 am
“As new voters come of age, and as their older counterparts exit the voting pool, it’s likely that support will increase, pushing more states over the halfway mark. [read post]
21 Aug 2010, 10:07 am
The Download of the Week is The Story of FCC v. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 6:34 am
Here is the abstract: This chapter provides a back story to FCC v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:26 pm
Lujan v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 1:11 pm
(To be sure, it has prevailed in some other courts, including Hernandez v. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 8:10 am
See Walker v. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 1:45 pm
State v. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 1:40 pm
That law states that any other laws that the legislature, voters, or anyone else may wish to pass regarding its subject matter in the future are intended to be limited by the law which is passed today. [read post]
14 Aug 2010, 7:07 am
May, decided in 1987, and Arizonans for Official English v. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 4:34 pm
The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix,” in Loving v. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 10:00 pm
Voters are given impenetrable summaries on the ballot. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 7:37 pm
In Perry v. [read post]
12 Aug 2010, 12:35 pm
The judge relied quite heavily upon a 1997 decision by the Supreme Court — Arizonans for Official English v. [read post]
