Search for: "State v. Square"
Results 6141 - 6160
of 6,572
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2010, 7:59 pm
Brown and David Matusow, Bahr, et al. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 10:46 am
" Christopher v. [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 9:01 pm
FTC Chair Lina Khan previewed this in June, stating that “The word ‘efficiency’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the antitrust statutes. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 3:18 pm
On April 1, 2010, Judge Terry Means of the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling in Highmark, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 12:56 pm
See United States v. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 11:00 am
Sierra Watch v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 7:40 pm
See United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm
Google and Twitter v. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 3:36 pm
Billing v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 5:15 pm
See, e.g., ACands, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 9:07 pm
The will was executed in that State. [read post]
15 May 2019, 6:00 am
Less familiar is a problem that is perhaps the obverse: plural and incompatible ways of generating claims to say “yes,” to give the final word on who shall rule and what the state shall do. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm
Kahn v. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 6:29 am
No trade dress this time.This first Apple v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 10:26 am
Clews Land and Livestock, LLC v. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 5:05 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 10:21 am
In 1997, CompuServe v. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 9:01 pm
Above all that, it was clearly wrongly decided, and illustrates how some judges have bad interpretive instincts when it comes to navigating the tricky but ultra-important voting rights realm.The case, Texas Democratic Party v. [read post]
21 Dec 2023, 9:11 am
It’s unclear from the plain language—and the Court hadn’t squarely addressed—if the statute authorizes an award from a judgment when the offer of settlement was served in a prior action that was voluntarily dismissed. [read post]
20 Sep 2024, 3:21 am
In 1892’s landmark case, “Illinois Central Railroad Company v. [read post]