Search for: "State v. Price" Results 7281 - 7300 of 13,224
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Sep 2013, 11:30 pm by Theodore Ruger
Last summer, the Supreme Court put its money where its mouth was in terms of federalism doctrine in its landmark decision about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in NFIB v. [read post]
1 Sep 2013, 10:04 am by Mark Zamora
See also Georgia State Bar Rules, DR 7-102(A)(3), (4) and (5); DR 7-106(C) (1); Rule 4-102(d) Standard 45 and O.C.G.A. [read post]
30 Aug 2013, 7:38 am
Judge Rader stated that this identity of result "was not by accident". [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 9:44 am by WSLL
Price II, JudgeRepresenting Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 11:06 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Right now, she pointed out, the "state gets money from the program but the counties, the courts, and the people are paying the price." [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 7:52 am by Gene Quinn
Just over three years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Bilski v. [read post]
28 Aug 2013, 4:54 am by Jeff Gamso
  Back in 1999, when the Ohio Supremes affirmed his death sentence in State v. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 6:56 am by Joy Waltemath
Moreover, unlike the lone First Circuit decision, DiFiore v American Airlines, Inc, which involved an effort to use an employee compensation statute to directly attack an airline’s prices and services, neither the deduction nor the reimbursement statute had a direct connection to FedEx’s prices, routes, or services. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 1:02 pm by Ken White
I raise the question again because the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico has issued a decision in Elane Photography v. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 6:55 am by Thomas G. Heintzman
  The price or supply may be influenced by the contracts, but it is the price and supply which create the lien. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 4:00 am by John Gregory
One of the fascinations of electronic communications is how they make many traditional questions of law new again. [read post]