Search for: "People v. Scott (1999)"
Results 41 - 60
of 138
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Dec 2017, 8:16 am
Cir. 1999), the D.C. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 11:40 am
Topics this month include:Top StoriesUS v. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 4:58 am
[v] Please reread Scott’s post on “Your Honor. [read post]
7 Aug 2017, 3:33 am
In 1999, the U.S. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 11:00 am
Scott Turow, Personal Injuries | As a novelist of popular law-oriented contemporary fiction, Turow towers over most others. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 11:46 am
Taney in the majority opinion for the Dred Scott case (1857). [read post]
19 May 2017, 12:23 pm
Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217, 222-23 (Tex. 1999). [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 3:15 am
In 1999, the U.S. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 7:27 am
J. 845-879 (1999). [read post]
20 Nov 2016, 9:01 pm
In Sansone v. [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 7:39 am
In an April 27, 2010 post titled, `The Dog Grifters: Donna Roberts and Dawn Abrams Strike Again,’ defendant wondered how `these despicable human beings’ `think that they can continue to get away with ripping people off . . . [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 5:40 am
It is well-settled law that legislative enactments carry a strong presumption of constitutionality (People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 422 [2003); People v Scott, 26 NY2d 286, 291 [1970)) Thus, a party seeking to find a statute unconstitutional bears a heavy burden and “must demonstrate, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, that the statute suffers from ‘wholesale constitutional impairment'” (People… [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 6:07 pm
Diaz v. [read post]
26 Jun 2016, 2:30 pm
(Jeb Bush, 1999-2007; Charlie Crist, 2007-2011; Rick Scott, 2011-2019), making them a conservative group. [read post]
26 Jun 2016, 2:30 pm
(Jeb Bush, 1999-2007; Charlie Crist, 2007-2011; Rick Scott, 2011-2019), making them a conservative group. [read post]
4 May 2016, 10:38 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 May 2016, 10:38 am
Co. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2015, 2:11 pm
See Scott v. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 2:00 am
The DC Court also noted that the NLRB was not entitled to Chevron deference when it was interpreting the FVRA and neither was the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, whose 1999 interpretation of the 1998 statue coincided with the NLRB ’s views. [read post]
