Search for: "State v. Plan"
Results 6641 - 6660
of 29,605
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Apr 2020, 4:40 am
Jasmine has also stated it had no plans to blog in the future. [read post]
13 Apr 2020, 3:46 am
Supreme Court was petitioned recently to take up Higginson v. [read post]
12 Apr 2020, 11:35 am
After the TRO was issued, Mayor Fischer stated that there were no planned enforcement actions. [read post]
12 Apr 2020, 6:05 am
” This is discussed in the 2010, opinion, Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2020, 4:20 am
Andy Beshear’s statewide plan to order people into quarantine if they attend mass gatherings, including religious ones. [read post]
12 Apr 2020, 3:12 am
”Hong KongHKSAR v. [read post]
11 Apr 2020, 6:53 pm
In On Fire Christian Center, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Apr 2020, 9:26 am
It does this by applying Jacobson v. [read post]
10 Apr 2020, 1:28 pm
Even many federal and state agencies have subpoena power, though generally with a limited scope. [read post]
10 Apr 2020, 5:16 am
You might not recognize the name Gary Locke, but I did, because his name was on one of the most important freedom of religion cases, Locke v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 9:01 pm
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and South Dakota v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 2:11 pm
Santa Clara County Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal.4th 32, 43 [NODs]; Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 10:49 am
In this respect, Baltimore’s plan echoes the National Security’s Agency’s secret seven-year collection of Americans’ telephone records — which was found to be unlawful in another ACLU lawsuit, ACLU v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 8:24 am
On the whole, the Superior Court found that the employer had no plan for recording or controlling overtime hours. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 7:30 am
Schwartz v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 12:36 pm
Wade (1973) (citing Jacobson); Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 11:48 am
” Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that “(i) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom’s assertions, the Company’s video communications services was not end-to-end- encrypted; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, users of Zoom’s communications services were at increased risk of having their personal information access by unauthorized parties, including Facebook;… [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 7:34 am
’” Opeta v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 6:17 am
Houdek v. [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 6:00 am
§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(v). [read post]
