Search for: "State v. Save"
Results 6381 - 6400
of 11,764
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Sep 2013, 1:57 pm
“Moral disapproval” can no longer save a law. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 4:46 am
Fintak v. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 1:49 am
Supreme Court in its 1994 decision in O’Melveny & Myers v. [read post]
15 Sep 2013, 9:00 pm
Although the Governor’s actions saved Frank from execution by the State, he lived for just two more two months. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 11:47 am
However, for the reasons articulated in my concurring opinion in Hutchinson v. [read post]
13 Sep 2013, 7:17 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 8:10 pm
It’s unclear if any saving construction will be applied. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 8:23 pm
Judiciary Law § 510 provides that to be qualified as a juror a person must: (1) be a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county, (2) be not less than eighteen years of age, (3) not have been convicted of a felony, and (4) be able to understand and communicate in the English language. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 8:53 am
., and Mellion v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 7:44 am
Ehling v. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 4:30 am
Circuit decision in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
9 Sep 2013, 8:43 pm
In Rodriguez v. [read post]
7 Sep 2013, 12:35 pm
Moreover, the state’s “lawful activities” statute (which prohibits termination based on lawful activity off premises and after hours) did not save the claim because the term “lawful” refers to both state and federal law and the latter prohibits marijuana use. [read post]
5 Sep 2013, 10:40 pm
Speaking of India’s contentious compulsory licensing order in Natco v. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 4:20 pm
Ehling v. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 1:27 pm
Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 329 n.17 (1981); United States v. [read post]
4 Sep 2013, 9:41 am
Rather, it was crucial for paving the way for the Chief Justice’s savings construction. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 2:21 pm
Friends of Oroville v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 8:58 am
Abbott Friends of Oroville v. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 11:30 pm
Last summer, the Supreme Court put its money where its mouth was in terms of federalism doctrine in its landmark decision about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in NFIB v. [read post]
