Search for: "State v. Plan" Results 7281 - 7300 of 29,606
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Nov 2008, 6:46 pm
The Court also agreed to decide whether the Constitution requires an elected state judge to step aside from deciding a case involving the financial interests of a major campaign donor (Caperton v. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 8:13 am by Michael Grossman
This can be traced back to the outcome of Pliva, Inc. v Mensing in 2011. [read post]
13 Nov 2010, 5:03 am by Kevin
Barton: Next Congress Will Focus on Online Privacy EU wants stronger online privacy rules Air Force warns against location-based app Australian Mobile Telecommunications Assocation LBS Guidelines Data Quality/Liability Google Tool May Have Had Wrong Polling Place Faulty GPS tells soldiers in Afghanistan they are in Africa National Security/Law Enforcement State v. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 8:42 am by Laura Sandwell
A Commons Standard Note was published on badger culling, detailing the history of the cull planned for this autumn and outlining the permit system in place. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:43 am by centerforartlaw
Source: USPTO  Rothschild moved to dismiss the complaint under the Second Circuit’s Rogers v. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 6:01 am by Josh Blackman
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the state-action doctrine in United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 7:52 am by Steven Cohen
Meisamy has stated that he plans to testify about two theories that could explain the cause of William’s death. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Courts in New York State have consistently recognized the importance of using progressive discipline.Rulings by the New York State Supreme Court, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, suggest an employer’s in assigning severe penalties for certain “first offenses” may not survive judicial review. [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 8:42 am by Eric Goldman
The court summarizes: The primary effect of the DPIA provision is to compel speech…The State cannot insulate a specific provision of law from a facial challenge under the First Amendment by bundling it with other, separate provisions that do not implicate the First Amendment The court also says that the DPIA requirement “deputizes covered businesses into serving as censors for the State” because the DPIA risk “factors require consideration of content or… [read post]