Search for: "Cruz v. State"
Results 601 - 620
of 972
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jan 2016, 8:52 am
City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 4:00 am
There I argued (among other things) that the amicus brief of Senators Hawley, Cruz, and Lee is peculiar in that it is almost entirely directed against the undue burden test adopted by SCOTUS in Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:46 am
Cruz Santana, No. 03 CV 6299(JG), 2005 WL 67094, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 4:41 pm
(City of Santa Cruz v. [read post]
8 Jun 2022, 9:01 pm
Board overruled Plessy v. [read post]
8 Mar 2016, 6:29 am
“The majority opinion which follows,” Barry wrote at the outset of their opinion, “was in final form before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument” in Stenberg. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 12:10 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 4:04 pm
Said the Commission, the term ‘Tokaj’ appeared in the national provisions, not on its own but as part of compound terms consisting of a number of words, such as ‘Vinohradnícka oblasť Tokaj’, ‘Akostné víno pochádzajúce z vinohradníckej oblasti Tokaj’ or ‘Tokajské víno’. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 4:43 am
” Matt Ford at The Atlantic observes that “if Lee’s inclusion was intended as an olive branch for Ted Cruz, it seemed to work: On Friday afternoon, Cruz finally endorsed Donald Trump, citing it as one of six reasons for his decision. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm
Hall notes that under the test Justice Gorsuch articulates in his Gundy v. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 9:00 am
Erwin Cruz v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 2:27 pm
Cruz, Mr. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 2:27 pm
Cruz, Mr. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 2:27 pm
Cruz, Mr. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 10:14 pm
Such a high stakes multi-state litigation effort would make the combative Bush v. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 5:00 am
Cruz-Ramirez, No. 2015-CV-234 CV (C.P. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 1:30 pm
County of Santa Cruz v. [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 10:26 am
Ashcroft in 2003 and in Islamic American Relief Agency v. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 2:50 am
’Advocate General Advocate General Pedro Cruz Villalon advised the CJEU to answer all these questions quite simply: ‘Where conduct occurs via the internet which is liable to infringe a national trade mark registered in a Member State, Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it attributes jurisdiction: – to the courts of the Member State in which the trade mark is registered – and to the courts of the Member… [read post]
