Search for: "BAKER v. THE STATE" Results 701 - 720 of 2,917
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2011, 6:00 am by Victoria VanBuren
[This is the third installment in a three-part series on the Guest-Post:  States’ Rights, Big Business and the Nature of Arbitration:  AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm by INFORRM
Baker J simply made the relevant orders, whereas Binchy J handed down a full judgment explaining that section 27 was the reason why he refused to award the injunctions against the defamatory posts. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 11:41 am by NARF
Baker: The difference an Indigenous leader makes Wild horses, buffalo and the politics of belonging [read post]
20 May 2022, 9:30 pm by ernst
 ICYMI: A Smithsonian curator of medicine and science on Griswold v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 12:17 pm by Stephen D. Rosenberg
As Sarah Jenkins and Jon Laramore of Faegre Baker Daniels discussed in this piece – the first one I have seen discussing the substance of this opinion – the Court held in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. [read post]
17 May 2013, 9:30 pm by Karen Tani
(Hat tip: H-Law) Marc Lender discusses his book on Gitlow v. [read post]
19 Sep 2012, 10:44 am by Sheppard Mullin
By Tyler Baker and Ted Max On September 5, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-awaited and highly anticipated decision in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 2:45 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Nouri & Anor, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 1379 (27 June 2012) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) R & Ors (Minors), R (on the application of) v The Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service [2012] EWCA Civ 853 (29 June 2012) Loader, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 869 (29 June 2012) High Court (Chancery Division) Gaydamak v Leviev… [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 4:17 am by Edith Roberts
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which asks whether the First Amendment prevents a state from requiring a baker to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, maintaining that “it would be a fundamental mistake for the court to hold that the baker’s artistry exempts them from anti-discrimination law. [read post]