Search for: "Mitchell v. State"
Results 701 - 720
of 1,837
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2024, 10:00 am
Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karin Wolfe of counsel), for respondents.Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 8:00 am
Haas v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 9:02 pm
At issue in United States v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 6:35 am
” Frontiero v. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 8:03 am
For a similar decision under the Utah Constitution's general due process principles, see Mitchell v. [read post]
5 Nov 2008, 12:44 am
By contrast, in Mitchell v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 2:25 pm
[iii] United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2009, 6:05 am
The court concluded, however, that the state had not shown that a total ban on smudging ceremonies is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest in safety and security.In Mitchell v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 6:34 am
United States, 09-10231, and Mitchell v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 7:07 am
That opens the door wide to government financial support of religion, as in the plurality’s reasoning in Mitchell v. [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 6:30 am
Davis, and Rose James, Teneo, on Monday, February 26, 2024 Tags: affirmative action, Anti-DEI, dei, Diversity, Stakeholders, Transparency Oregon State Treasury Nomination Neutrality Posted by Philip Larrieu, Oregon State Treasury, on Monday, February 26, 2024 Tags: Board of Directors, Director nominations, fiduciary duty, Proxy access, shareholder interests, Universal Proxy Rebellion extinction: Does Exxon mark the end of shareholder engagement? [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 6:30 am
Davis, and Rose James, Teneo, on Monday, February 26, 2024 Tags: affirmative action, Anti-DEI, dei, Diversity, Stakeholders, Transparency Oregon State Treasury Nomination Neutrality Posted by Philip Larrieu, Oregon State Treasury, on Monday, February 26, 2024 Tags: Board of Directors, Director nominations, fiduciary duty, Proxy access, shareholder interests, Universal Proxy Rebellion extinction: Does Exxon mark the end of shareholder engagement? [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 4:09 am
Copyright © 2010, Mitchell H. [read post]
11 Jan 2015, 8:39 am
This Court has identified several activities that satisfy this test—see, e.g., id., at 249, 251, 76 S.Ct. 330; Mitchell v. [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 12:20 pm
Mitchell (On Remand), 231 Mich. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 9:22 am
Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 8:22 am
Another Ohio case that adopted Mitchell is State V. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 11:05 am
Mitchell v. [read post]
12 Apr 2007, 5:42 am
From the PD blog Kansas Defenders:Here is the front-page Topeka Capital-Journal article reporting that Cindy Sewell and Jennifer Roth won an acquittal in State v. [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm
In short, the court concluded in LePage v. [read post]
