Search for: "STATE v COUNTS"
Results 6761 - 6780
of 17,255
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2012, 11:52 am
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lafler v. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 11:28 am
New York's Third Judicial Department in Ayers v. [read post]
31 May 2010, 12:25 pm
"In United States v. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 7:44 am
by Dennis Crouch Caterpillar v. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Lane (1989) and Griffith v. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 12:05 pm
See Lynch v. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 6:39 am
Fergon Architects LLC v. [read post]
26 Jul 2022, 7:05 am
By Suzanne CosgroveA state appeals court has affirmed a decision by the Iowa Insurance Division that two salesmen from Texas company Carson Energy, Inc., violated the state’s blue-sky laws. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 10:12 am
Minimal uses of force don't count. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 9:32 am
Reversed and remanded in part.Case Name: JAIME SOLIS v. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 1:20 pm
Case Name: TONY SERNA v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 10:47 am
In United States v. [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 1:59 pm
In its decision, the Appeals Court stated, “The defendant claims that he needs the juror information in order to contact the seated jurors pursuant to the procedures set forth in Commonwealth v. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 12:11 pm
"University of Chicago v United States of America, CA 7th Circuit, Docket # No.07-3686The University of Chicago did not pay, report, or withhold Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax between 2000 and 2003 for payments made under its employee retirement plans, including its "Section 403-b Tax Deferred Annuity Plan. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm
And in Lawrence v. [read post]
31 Oct 2021, 9:25 am
This has more recently been reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 7:40 am
FEC, NAMUDNO v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 5:27 am
As the case caption itself suggests, our criminal justice system is shifting, at least to some modest degree, from a two-sided, “State v. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 12:51 pm
State v. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 11:41 am
That is, the movant could only ask to proceed on the following claims from the Amended Complaint [ECF 234]: (i) Plaintiffs’ third-party ballot-delivery claims that are set forth as parts of Counts I, II and III; (ii) Plaintiffs’ facial challenge to Pennsylvania’s poll-watching residency restriction set forth in Counts IV and V; and (iii) Plaintiffs’ claims for improper provisional voting as set forth in Counts VIII and IX. [read post]
