Search for: "State v. So"
Results 6461 - 6480
of 117,819
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Apr 2011, 7:59 am
The Eighth Circuit recently addressed an issue which the United States Supreme Court expressly side-stepped in 2007 when it decided United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 11:24 am
The initial argument advanced by petitioners in opposition to respondents' application of sections 500 and 517 of the Retirement and Social Security Law to themselves and others similarly situated so as to change a noncontributory system to a contributory one, is that such application violates section 7 of article V of the New York State Constitution, which states that membership in a State retirement system is a contractual relationship, "the… [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 11:24 am
The initial argument advanced by petitioners in opposition to respondents' application of sections 500 and 517 of the Retirement and Social Security Law to themselves and others similarly situated so as to change a noncontributory system to a contributory one, is that such application violates section 7 of article V of the New York State Constitution, which states that membership in a State retirement system is a contractual relationship, "the… [read post]
31 Aug 2018, 12:23 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 5:01 am
The Supreme Court in Morrison v. [read post]
22 Jul 2024, 12:34 pm
In Murthy v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 5:00 am
It’s hard to say as she was so quiet. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 6:17 am
Arias v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 4:02 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 7:08 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 8:11 am
" Lozano v. [read post]
30 Oct 2014, 6:11 am
Co. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 4:10 pm
So is the 13-year old. [read post]
15 Jul 2024, 12:32 pm
So what's the point? [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 7:41 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2017, 3:53 pm
Nasby v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
Ratification was advised by the Senate of the United States of America on June 21, 1976. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 8:47 am
That concern might be interpreted (as a matter of legal theory) in a few different ways: Justice Kennedy might believe that Congress would not have intended to set up such a dubious system; he might believe that this reading is required but actually unconstitutional (so that he would strike down the statute’s condition that subsidies apply only to exchanges established by the state); or – perhaps most likely – he might believe that the statute should… [read post]
30 Jun 2007, 11:10 pm
Benn was co-counsel in a winning case before the United States Supreme Court, Johnson v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 2:49 pm
United States v. [read post]
