Search for: "State v. Lively" Results 6501 - 6520 of 28,991
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2020, 7:03 am
”The third condition, inextricably intertwined with the previous two above, is the “provision of public health services,” supported in the first instance by a national or federal government, in cooperation and collaboration with states, local and community governments and decision-making institutions and bodies. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 3:49 am by INFORRM
United States Just Security had a piece “Lawsuit against Fox News Over Coronavirus Coverage: Can It Succeed? [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 3:46 am by Edith Roberts
Supreme Court was petitioned recently to take up Higginson v. [read post]
12 Apr 2020, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Evers did finally act to postpone the election, only to be thwarted by the Republican majority on the state supreme court, which ruled that he lacked the authority to take this step on his own.Meanwhile, the state received an overwhelming flood of last-minute applications for absentee ballots from Wisconsinites understandably wary of risking their lives to cast a vote in person. [read post]
10 Apr 2020, 2:16 pm
  Maybe you can do it in the state law equivalent of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion (void judgments). [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and South Dakota v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 10:49 am by Jay Stanley
United States — we argue that tracking individuals in the way that this technology does is something the government cannot do without a warrant. [read post]
Chronic pain interferes with an individual’s activities of daily living, including the ability to work. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 5:00 am by Lama Mourad, Stephanie Schwartz
Today, many of the cases challenging the Trump administration’s new immigration policies (such as Innovation Law Lab v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 1:28 pm by Jon Katz
Cops have extraordinary power in our overly-policed state, that stands in sharp contract to the ideal of our living in a free society in the United States. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 12:44 pm by Matheu Nunn
The provision in the parties’ agreement stated, in relevant part, that certain events would not constitute a change in circumstances permitting a reduction or termination in alimony: “1) [t]he voluntary reduction in income of either party; 2) [a]ny voluntary increase or decrease in each party’s cost of living; [and] 3) [t]he dissipation of the assets received by either party as and for equitable distribution. [read post]