Search for: "Ross v. State"
Results 561 - 580
of 1,802
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Apr 2019, 10:00 pm
See Order at p. 2 citing Hassel v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 1:26 pm
Milligan’s winning paper is titled, Malmin v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 8:13 am
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on April 2, 2019, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on Department of Commerce v. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 10:15 pm
We could see this changing, especially because part because the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Ross v. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 3:00 am
Ross, IJ “Short Circuit” on Wingert v. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 12:30 pm
See Timbs v. [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 12:30 pm
See Timbs v. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 7:38 am
Department of Commerce v. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 11:51 am
” On the other hand, Judge Roger Titus of the district of Maryland wrote, in CASA de Maryland v. [read post]
3 Apr 2019, 8:54 am
Six cases filed in three states challenged Ross’ decision. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 3:00 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 1:06 pm
Mithun Mansinghani serves as solicitor general for the state of Oklahoma, which filed an amicus brief joined by 16 other states in support of the petitioners in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 11:18 am
House of Representatives in support of the respondents in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 1:00 am
Health Reform Erin Fuse Brown, Georgia State University College of Law, Could States Do Single-Payer? [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 4:29 am
New York State? [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 8:06 am
Department of Commerce v. [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 10:00 pm
The suit also maintains that Secretary Ross’s stated reasons in his memorandum are pretextual, and that his decision was driven by secret reasons, including animus against minorities. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 11:29 am
Ross’s characterization blatantly misrepresented the state of expert opinion. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 10:15 am
Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 833 F. [read post]
7 Mar 2019, 4:12 am
” At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel suggests that the omission of any mention of Chevron v. [read post]
