Search for: "State v. Jim" Results 641 - 660 of 2,304
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2012, 7:47 am by Jennifer Zona
The statement comes after a request for clarification from Secretary of State Jim Condos regarding the federal court decision in Vermont Right to Life Committee (VRLC) v. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 1:28 pm by nflatow
Six long years had passed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. [read post]
1 Dec 2015, 2:48 am by Amy Howe
The ImmigrationProf Blog is hosting an online symposium on United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 1:48 pm by Press Releases
The Court was clearly conscious of the potential negative and unforeseeable consequences of a broad and sweeping decision,” stated BIO President and CEO Jim Greenwood. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
In this brilliant new book, Luke Glanville explodes the myth that sovereignty grants states carte blanche to govern however they please. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 2:52 am by Walter Olson
Crane, Cato Regulation magazine] “Solicitor General Inveighs Against Antitrust-Law Revolution in SCOTUS ‘Apple v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 6:30 am by Joshua Matz
Jim Fitzgerald of the Associated Press reports on the cert. petition in Bronx Household of Faith v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 7:53 am by Christine Wilton
Idaho, Nov. 3, 2011)  (case no. 1:10-bk-3569; adv. proc. no. 1:11-ap-6038) (Bankruptcy Judge Jim D. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 6:47 am by Marissa Miller
University of Texas at Austin and the arguments in United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 2:59 am by Amy Howe
At BuzzFeed, Chris Geidner profiles Jim Obergefell, one of the plaintiffs in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. [read post]
5 May 2022, 5:30 am by Guest Blogger
  It was the entire system of Jim Crow, carefully built, year by year, in state after state that sought to subordinate Black people encompassingly. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 5:46 am by Susan Brenner
This judge began his analysis of the motion by noting that to “`“state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of State law. [read post]