Search for: "Lively v. State" Results 7701 - 7720 of 29,025
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Apr 2008, 2:50 am
Skyscraper originalism views the Constitution as more or less a finished product (albeit always subject to later Article V amendment). [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 2:56 pm
Millemann In Association For Molecular Pathology v. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 8:00 am by Guest Blogger
Article V, because it requires two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, is, as Sandy Levinson has put it, functionally dead. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 3:48 pm by Orin Kerr
(Orin Kerr) On September 30, Judge Doherty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana handed down a decision in Vidrine v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 3:35 pm
And, as anything that lives in the Gulf of Mexico would tell you (if it could talk), pollution begins at the wellhead. [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
(Those procedures were just declared unconstitutional in a parallel state court case, Van Stean v. [read post]
8 Jul 2022, 10:14 am by Lisa Vicens and Samuel Levander
ShareThis article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 6:32 am
He said `Wes’ lived in Delaware and drove a green Honda with a Delaware registration. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 11:07 am
At the time, she was living with her mother, Barbara Villa, and her stepfather, Ray Villa, as well as defendant's aunt, Becky Hughey, and defendant's younger brother. [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 6:40 am
If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the felt need of authoritarians and totalitarians over the last century or so to make false claims of democratic legitimacy at least reveals a modern supposition that popular support is necessary to legitimate state power. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 4:21 pm
  Oracle argued that Arizona and Colorado law should apply because the employees regularly work and live in those states. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 10:27 am
In terms of the plaintiff's public policy argument, the Court stated that a clause requiring the plaintiffs to litigate in the county in which they lived and in which the accident happened could hardly be said to be an insurance policy clause that would injure the public or be against the public good. [read post]