Search for: "United States v. Washington" Results 6161 - 6180 of 10,168
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Apr 2013, 9:01 am by Rachel Sachs
Perry and United States v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 6:34 pm by Bart Torvik
You might have thought the case, United States v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 1:00 pm by Mary Whisner
Curious about the labor movement in Washington State? [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 11:45 am by Conor McEvily
Perry (challenging California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
31 Mar 2013, 8:00 pm by Jason Mazzone
The oral argument this past Wednesday in United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 12:46 pm
Similarly, in Port Washington Union Free School Dist. v Port Washington Teachers Assn., 268 AD2d 523, the Appellate Division ruled that a CBA provision that allowed a teacher to be absent with pay on "any of the religious holidays designated by the New York State Commissioner of Education" without charging his or her absence to leave credits violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 7:50 am by Kelly Phillips Erb
Nine of the 50 US states and the US capital Washington allow same-sex unions, while many more still prohibit them. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 7:16 am by David Oscar Markus
  The lawyers for both sides made the list of top 100 influential lawyers in the United States by the National Law Journal. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 7:47 pm by John Bellinger
… There’s no connection to the United States whatsoever. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 11:27 am by Jeffrey Vlasek
Posted by Jeffrey VlasekOn November 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16th President of the United States. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 6:59 am by Sheldon Toplitt
., Tyrone Power, George Hamilton and Antonio Bandaras, and in a Disney tv series by Guy Williams, starred in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 4:09 am by Rick E. Rayl
United States (2012) 133 S.Ct. 511, in which the Supreme Court rejected an argument that temporarily flooding someone's property cannot qualify as a taking, as a matter of law. [read post]