Search for: "State v. Bill"
Results 5681 - 5700
of 19,662
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Mar 2011, 8:23 am
The Secretary of State designates a date of publication that is no later than ten working days after the enactment of the bill (Wis. [read post]
8 Nov 2009, 9:06 am
What a great title for a symposium: "A Vain and Idle Enactment: Could McDonald v. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 10:13 am
Totten v. [read post]
8 Apr 2009, 2:22 pm
Totten v. [read post]
26 Jul 2018, 1:32 pm
That said, a modest impact would still be an improvement over the status quo, and the bill would at least save some federal funds that would otherwise go to misbehaving state and local governments. [read post]
20 May 2019, 10:00 am
“They want to challenge Roe v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 4:02 am
This suggests that in such situations the State may attempt to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it immune from suit in federal court for alleged violations of Title VII in view of the rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kimel v Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 and Alden v Maine, 527 U.S. 706, cases involving employees suing their state employer in federal court for alleged violations of, respectively, the Age Discrimination in… [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 2:31 am
A letter co-ordinated by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition to Justice Secretary Alex Chalk seeks an amendment to the anti-SLAPP bill making its way through Parliament. [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 9:44 am
When it did not pay its bills, data that was consequential to the litigation got deleted. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 5:06 am
And the overprinted bills are collector's items. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:30 am
The comp system has been around for years, sometimes triple-digit years in most states. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 8:42 am
The court summarizes: The primary effect of the DPIA provision is to compel speech…The State cannot insulate a specific provision of law from a facial challenge under the First Amendment by bundling it with other, separate provisions that do not implicate the First Amendment The court also says that the DPIA requirement “deputizes covered businesses into serving as censors for the State” because the DPIA risk “factors require consideration of content or… [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 10:53 am
In Gersh v. [read post]
3 Jul 2014, 3:00 am
A complete discussion in North Carolina would also need to include State v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 12:44 pm
For me, especially given the states’-rights orientation of the Anti-Federalists, who demanded the addition of the Bill of Rights, the best answer is the punishment meted out by the States. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 1:22 pm
House of Representatives approved the bill by a vote of 249 to 169. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 9:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 4:00 am
As it stated at para. 7 of Vavilov, it had become clear that the simplicity and predictability promised by Dunsmuir v. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 8:26 am
It also contained a number of limitations: Law No. 94-V does not extend to the collection of personal data for personal and family needs; the use of information for the Kazakhstani National Archive; the collection, processing, and protection of personal data related to Kazakhstani state secrets; or the use of information related to intelligence, counter-intelligence, and criminal activities, within legal limits. 5. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 3:30 pm
Until the decision in Howell v. [read post]
