Search for: "State v. So " Results 7381 - 7400 of 116,395
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Apr 2023, 5:08 am by Will Baude
Indeed it is so complicated that the Court had to DIG the case it had about this issue last term (Arizona v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 12:10 pm by John Floyd
Supreme Court, in one of its most historical decisions, Marbury v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 7:30 am by Daniel Carpenter-Gold
Photo from Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in California Restaurant Association v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 6:05 am by Leila Nadya Sadat
  Many of these objections are based upon the so-called “delegation theory” of the ICC’s jurisdiction fail. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 6:00 am by William C. MacLeod and Darby Hobbs
Chair Rodgers also noted the retreat from imposing undue burdens, stating that it removed guardrails essential to good governance. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 5:01 am by Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk
  The Supreme Court held this week in Türkiye Halk Bankasi, A.S. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Such quarterly disclosures state whether the issuer’s relevant officers or directors have traded in securities subject to the issuer’s buyback program within 10 business days before or after its announcement.[8] Shortcomings of the SEC’s Reforms The key shortcoming of the SEC reforms are the absence of prospective disclosure requirements with respect to the adoption of Rule 10b5-1 Trading Arrangements and other trading arrangements despite its stated purpose of… [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
That was certainly true of the recent Supreme Court oral argument in Counterman v. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 3:49 pm by Ronald Mann
ShareMonday’s arguments in Lac du Flambeau Band v Coughlin takes the justices back once again to the question of tribal immunity. [read post]
20 Apr 2023, 1:51 pm by Daniel J. Gilman
In one complaint, the alleged restrictions on security guards seemed excessive and unreasonable (as a state court found them to be, under state law), but that doesn’t mean that they violated the FTC Act. [read post]