Search for: "High v State"
Results 6341 - 6360
of 35,518
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Nov 2020, 7:52 pm
Sessions and Barton v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 6:46 pm
Pix Credit HERE "Armed with Marxist-Leninist theory and ideology, the Communist Party of China has brought a new style of work to the Chinese people, a style of work which essentially entails integrating theory with practice, forging close links with the masses and practicing self-criticism. . . . [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 2:31 pm
V. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 12:21 pm
Initially, the court resolved the case against the defendant; however, after the states’ high court issued its opinion in People v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 12:00 pm
For example, back in June, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 8:58 am
Longarzo * DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 7:12 am
[High points and low points of today's oral argument in the latest Affordable Care Act case.] [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 6:03 am
Adler has a post titled “On the Eve of Argument in California v. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 7:20 pm
Texas is the seventh ACA case to reach the High Court, and it will not be the last. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 10:30 am
” Kavanaugh cited Marbury v. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 9:33 am
A recent California Supreme Court decision, Ward v. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 9:00 am
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Barr v. [read post]
8 Nov 2020, 2:12 pm
This was with reference to the judgment of HHJ Luba QC in Pavey v LB Hackney. [read post]
7 Nov 2020, 3:12 am
Decisions this Week IndiaAmit Sahni v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 6:33 pm
Backer, Race, "The Race," and the Republic: Re-conceiving Judicial Authority After Bush v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 3:23 pm
But Wednesday's decision in State v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 2:30 pm
The case, Brownback v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 12:50 pm
Supreme Court in Brownback v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 12:18 pm
There's simply no reason at all to think that the 2017 Congress believed that anyone (no reasonable person, anyway) would purchase unwanted insurance because of a "sense of legal obligation" engendered by the 2017 statutory amendment.But even if there were some such unreasonable people out there (such as, perhaps, the individual plaintiffs in the case) who mistakenly read the amended Section 5000A to require them to purchase insurance, those people--like the… [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 5:07 am
The Supreme Court’s unanimous July 2020 decision in Chiafolo v. [read post]
