Search for: "State v. So"
Results 5841 - 5860
of 117,819
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2023, 5:01 am
From DeHart v. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 4:00 am
LP (1st Dept 2011), Stone v Frederick (3d Dept 1997), and Giaimo v EGA Associates (1st Dept 2009), cement the concept that, where the by-laws do not overtly give the president the right to commence litigation, and there is board or shareholder deadlock about the propriety of doing so, the president then lacks the authority to bring an action directly in the name of the corporation. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 4:00 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 2:25 am
R (on the application of Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 7th June 2023. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 1:58 am
Leonid V. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 1:58 am
Leonid V. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
” The Court notably took a similar approach last month in United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 9:02 pm
In Coinbase v. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 9:01 pm
The United States Supreme Court can’t seem to make up its mind about race. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 6:01 pm
” Lovelace v. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 10:59 am
In United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2023, 4:46 am
: on two significant decisions on the legal recognition of same-sex couples: Buhuceanu and Others v Romania and Maymulakhin and Markiv v Ukraine. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 11:41 pm
A Matter of Perspective As another example, consider Steinberg v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 5:34 pm
Co. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 12:40 pm
Missouri v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 9:28 am
Indeed, Betsy came in the midst of the passing of Oklahoma version of state anti-immigrant law. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 9:14 am
From L.W. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 8:32 am
I admit that I'm no expert in the doctrine in this area, though I do watch it out of the corner of my eye, and I can't recall reading a more ridiculous standing decision in the last 10 years or so than the one the Court endorsed in the 303 Creative v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 6:33 am
Here's how he explained his decision (according to the best report we have of his opinion): As this Jurisdiction of the Secretary of State is so extensive; therefore the Power ought to be as clear as it is extensive. [read post]
