Search for: "President v. State" Results 6041 - 6060 of 21,131
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2013, 7:17 am by Rachel Sachs
Perry (involving Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2024, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
All seven state ballot measures considered following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 2:18 pm by CJLF Staff
  Richard Weizel of Reuters reports that last August, in the case of Santiago v. [read post]
2 Dec 2006, 11:03 am
Clark, provides that the authentication of an enrolled bill by the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate, and President of the United States is "complete and unimpeachable" proof of the bill's constitutional validity--and the law's concomitant force. [read post]
17 Oct 2008, 8:34 am
Even relatively short periods of unexcused delay are unreasonable as a matter of law (see Power Auth. of State of N.Y. v Westinghouse Elec. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 1:45 pm by Zarine Kharazian
The DOJ and Microsoft have both filed motions to dismiss as moot the seminal data privacy case before the Supreme Court this term, United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 1:45 pm by Zarine Kharazian
The DOJ and Microsoft have both filed motions to dismiss as moot the seminal data privacy case before the Supreme Court this term, United States v. [read post]
15 May 2007, 5:43 am
Bonar, the next president of the Kentucky Bar, will appeal. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 12:44 pm by Kirk Jenkins
Like most states, the baseline rule in Illinois is at-will employment. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 6:29 am by Matt Sundquist
The Court also heard argument last week in Samantar v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 1:59 pm by Deepak Gupta
  Yesterday, the Court heard oral argument in Rent-a-Center v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
In 1921, he was appointed Secretary of State by President Warren G. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 4:34 am by SHG
And if there was any more irony to be found in Greenhouse’s double secret polemic, it’s in her use of the mean ol’ Fifth Circuit’s Buck v. [read post]