Search for: "Sales v. State" Results 5681 - 5700 of 21,152
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jun 2018, 9:39 am by Aurora Barnes
Washington 17-108 Issues: (1) Whether the creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding ceremony is artistic expression, and, if so, whether compelling their creation violates the free speech clause; and (2) whether the compelled creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding and attendance of that wedding against one’s religious beliefs violates the free exercise clause. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 7:15 am by John Elwood
Washington, 17-108 Issues: (1) Whether the creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding ceremony is artistic expression, and, if so, whether compelling their creation violates the free speech clause; and (2) whether the compelled creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding and attendance of that wedding against one’s religious beliefs violates the free exercise clause. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 6:50 am by Smith Eibeler LLC
The United States Supreme Court has ruled against a gay couple in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for their wedding in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 11:20 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
The true scope of the elusive but all pervasive party autonomy doctrine was at the heart of the debate in the case of Rock Advertising Limited v. [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 2:26 pm by Howard Knopf
 …The motions judge goes on to state:[10] The parties argued at some length about the current state of the law concerning grey marketing in Canada and whether, in particular, a Canadian trade-mark holder is entitled to enforce its trade-marks to prevent sales in Canada by third parties of genuine product purchased from the trade-mark holder’s foreign parent company. [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm by Bobby Chen
.), Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated, “I have concluded that this is a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense of Section 5000(A)(a)” but that the decision not to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate “will not prevent the court in Texas v. [read post]