Search for: "State v. Powers"
Results 5821 - 5840
of 36,828
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Dec 2015, 8:19 am
As a result, the defendants based their request on the court’s inherent sanctioning power and the state unfair competition law’s fee-shifting provision. [read post]
4 Mar 2025, 3:43 pm
However, the constitutionality of these state-level measures have come under scrutiny in the pending case Micron Technology v. [read post]
2 Apr 2010, 10:07 am
On Wednesday in Robertson v. [read post]
23 Jan 2007, 10:30 am
Marbury v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 2:51 pm
On April 5, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals published its opinion in City of Bay City v. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 11:55 am
See People v. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 7:03 am
According to DTE, it is spending $1.7 billion to install these technologies at Monroe [Monroe Power Plant in Monroe, MI]." [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 5:15 am
The ECHR's judgment is found here: Klein v Russia, European Court of Human Rights From the Court's Final Judgment April 1, 2010. [read post]
16 Oct 2012, 12:07 pm
A panel of the Ninth Circuit in Miranda B. adopted a particular standard on this issue by quoting from a purported en banc opinion written by Chief Judge Kozinski, with a citation to "United States v. [read post]
16 Oct 2024, 3:37 pm
The first use of the phrase was Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 4:26 am
Per Vaughn v. [read post]
24 Jan 2008, 11:41 pm
Yesterday, in State Farm v. [read post]
19 Dec 2007, 5:29 am
State v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 5:33 am
State v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
In Alleyne v. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 8:06 pm
This is the same Fireman McMurrin as United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 8:00 am
” Powers v. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 11:10 pm
All of this would equally apply to a contingency at the State level, like the one which V Venkatesan points out. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 4:49 am
In his blog Dorf on Law, Dorf states that contingency fee arrangements, for example, between state attorneys general and private lawyers do not violate the separation of powers. [read post]
