Search for: "State v. Flowers  "
Results 41 - 60
of 581
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2012, 12:30 pm
On November 14, Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the motion to suppress. [read post]
30 Nov 2012, 12:30 pm
On November 14, Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the motion to suppress. [read post]
24 Apr 2014, 5:58 am
Flowers Bakeries, LLC, Case No. 13-1725 (D.D.C. [read post]
19 Nov 2021, 4:15 am
In the case, the Washington state Supreme Court held that a florist shop's refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and that enforcement of the law does not violate the constitutional rights of the floral shop owner. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 4:05 am
Arlene's Flowers and Ingersoll vs. [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 6:58 am
He left gifts, cards, and flowers despite her pleas for him to leave her alone. [read post]
4 Nov 2018, 3:10 pm
Here is the write up in SCOTUSBlog In Flowers v. [read post]
24 Aug 2014, 2:50 pm
United States v. [read post]
31 Oct 2013, 5:22 am
And then there is the case of State v. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 7:45 am
State v. [read post]
24 Jul 2016, 9:58 am
"In Flowers v. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 7:15 am
New Relists Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 9:16 am
United States of America (Federal Recognition) State Courts Bulletin https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2019.htmlT.W. v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 9:16 am
United States of America (Federal Recognition) State Courts Bulletin https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2019.htmlT.W. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:57 am
Flower Mound attorney Cameron J. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 12:57 pm
Hearts, candy, flowers, and dinner dates are all symbols and activities of this special day. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
24 Jun 2019, 6:38 am
Relevant to this holding was the Court's finding that the prosecutor had a history of racially-discriminatory juror selection practices in this case.The case is Flowers v. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 9:33 am
The SCT, in Flowers v. [read post]
