Search for: "STATE v. PORTER" Results 741 - 760 of 821
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2016, 9:30 pm by Justin Daniel
Supreme Court denied a request from the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) to rehear Friedrichs v. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 8:12 am by Alicia Maule
Supreme Court barred the execution of people with intellectual disability in Atkins v. [read post]
3 Mar 2020, 1:59 pm by Mark Walsh
” Alito says, in reference to a statute that President Barack Obama’s administration declined to defend in United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am by Administrator
”[72] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, however, did not agree that an expression stated in the positive (i.e., a “significant contributing cause”) meant the same thing as one stated in the negative (i.e., “not a trivial cause”). [read post]
12 Dec 2021, 2:22 pm by admin
., that an individual will become ill or die within a stated period of time or by a certain age). [read post]
7 May 2019, 2:27 pm by Ad Law Defense
  That was one of the questions posed to a Utah jury in Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:32 pm by WSLL
Dodson of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 7:42 pm by Adam Levitin
 They are either in favor of the Durbin Amendment (Katie Porter and I are all on record about this, as is US PIRG) or on the sidelines (Consumers Union, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America) about this particular legislation, even though they have expressed concern over swipe fee antitrust issues previously, and clearly stated that swipe fees cause consumers to pay higher prices. [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 9:05 pm by Gianna Hill
In a recent report, Viral V. [read post]
30 May 2011, 12:23 pm by S2KM Limited
In addition, NSSTA's Legal Committee Update included a summary of a 2011 tax case, Espinoza v. [read post]
4 Nov 2024, 6:39 am by Marty Lederman
In an article here back in July, I explained why Judge Cannon is wrong and why the Supreme Court was correct to hold in United States v. [read post]