Search for: "State v. Plan"
Results 7761 - 7780
of 29,606
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2019, 2:00 am
The North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Democrats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 9:01 pm
Responding to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling last week in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 2:25 pm
But expungement is still in the trial court's discretion; Commonwealth v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 11:31 am
Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 10:00 am
Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 6:30 am
In an earlier post, Josh noted that Texas v. [read post]
7 Jul 2019, 10:13 am
They planned to buy a house. [read post]
7 Jul 2019, 3:00 am
Ludovico Sculpture Trail Corp. v Town of Seneca Falls, 2019 NY Slip Op 04621 (4th Dept. 6/7/19) [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 1:46 pm
Wade and Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 12:08 pm
Ct. 1998) with Turner v. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 9:31 am
A little nudge goes a long way in increasing organ donor registrationsNicole Robitaille Canadians support organ donation but less than a quarter have made plans to donate. [read post]
4 Jul 2019, 8:22 pm
She stated, at paras. [read post]
4 Jul 2019, 9:19 am
The case of Dawe v. [read post]
9th Circuit En Banc Temporarily Reinstates Injunctions On Trump Administration Family Planning Rules
4 Jul 2019, 4:10 am
According to an AP report, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday voted to vacate the 3-judge panel's decision in State of California v. [read post]
4 Jul 2019, 3:00 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
4 Jul 2019, 2:57 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court held in Gobeille v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 4:06 am
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 4:05 am
After last week’s decision in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 2:23 am
On appeal from: [2018] EWCA Civ 844 This appeal considered whether a condition restricting the use of the premises should be implied into a planning permission granted by the appellant; alternatively, whether the planning permission should be interpreted as containing such a condition. [read post]
