Search for: "State of Utah. v. Call" Results 621 - 640 of 1,068
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2012, 6:12 am by Amy Howe
  Significantly, just last Term, in a case called Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
4 Jun 2020, 9:39 am by Eugene Volokh
Jackson explained on behalf of the court in the landmark decision of West Virginia State Board of Education v. [read post]
9 Jul 2022, 11:48 am by Eric Goldman
” As the Seventh Circuit has explained, the CDA “limits who may be called the publisher of information that appears online. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 12:33 pm by Harlan
The Court ruled a city government in Utah has the right to refuse the donation of a monument from a religious sect called Summum for display in a public park. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Kelley called it “a new Dred Scott. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 3:16 am by NCC Staff
In 1976, in a series of decisions called the Gregg cases, the Court confirmed that capital punishment was legal in the United States, but under limited circumstances. [read post]
27 May 2011, 3:33 pm
Utah May 24, 2011), the medical service provider tried suing the employer sponsoring a health insurance plan for unpaid bills in state court. [read post]
21 Jul 2019, 7:37 pm by John Floyd
With one exception (Utah), all states and the District of Columbia have a 0.08 percent BAC legal limit—any measurement above that legal limit is considered alcohol-impaired. [read post]
4 May 2020, 5:45 am by Barry Sookman
For example, in Univ. of Utah v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V.,13 the Federal Circuit explained that a state could not be an inventor, stating—The inventors of a patent are “the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. [read post]
4 May 2020, 5:45 am by Barry Sookman
For example, in Univ. of Utah v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der Wissenschaften e.V.,13 the Federal Circuit explained that a state could not be an inventor, stating—The inventors of a patent are “the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention. [read post]