Search for: "State v. Long."
Results 5861 - 5880
of 51,490
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
[Eugene Volokh] Third Circuit Reaffirms that Even Nonviolent Felons May Lose Second Amendment Rights
16 Nov 2022, 11:49 am
The case is Range v. [read post]
7 Aug 2024, 12:15 am
Palkon v. [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 1:13 pm
OCT is the group behind the Juliana litigation, in addition to several cases brought against states in state courts. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 5:48 am
McGraw v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 6:02 pm
In his scathing opinion in Home Care Association of America v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 6:02 pm
In his scathing opinion in Home Care Association of America v. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 3:57 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 2:15 pm
The Missouri Supreme Court, in in Mint Properties v. [read post]
29 Mar 2007, 5:29 am
US v. [read post]
25 Jan 2009, 11:48 am
In mid July the Subtenant's solicitor sent a further letter to the Sublandlord stating that a renewal had already been effected and including rent for July 2008. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 3:00 am
Vogle v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 6:20 am
In Perrino v. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 3:16 pm
Yes, so long as steps are taken to insure the transferee is not a straw man. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 10:04 am
Interflora British Unit v Marks and Spencer PLC Flowers Direct Online Limited [2009] EWHC 1095 (Ch). [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 4:15 am
Removes Schedule V drugs from those for which doctors must check the database. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 1:53 pm
It allows states to regulate the enforcement of arbitration agreements without running afoul of the FAA so long as they do so using “generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 2:24 am
Further, it states that the scope of the decision making is only "prima facie". [read post]
22 Oct 2007, 9:52 pm
People v. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 8:20 am
And it has long been a problem. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 7:05 am
Major A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas may have caused grave damage to protections long available to overseas government contractors and their employees under the Defense Base Act (“DBA”), 42 U.S.C. [read post]
