Search for: "FIRST MERIT" Results 7781 - 7800 of 32,743
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jul 2020, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
He is the first person charged with violating the LDA, which was amended in 2007 after his earlier scheme was uncovered. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 7:18 pm by Amy Howe
The post Court grants Alabama’s request to block ruling on COVID-related accommodations for upcoming runoff election appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 1:17 pm by Gregory Forman
” The first question I ask such parents is, “has there been a merits hearing and, if so, what was the result? [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 12:34 pm by Tia Sewell
“We need to protect our lives first before we can do more. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 10:15 am by Adam Feldman
The post Interim Stat Pack for October Term 2019 appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 9:48 am by Amy Howe
The court of appeals first concluded that the court’s 2018 decision in Jesner v. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 9:26 am by Aditi Shah
The court denied granting the habeas writ on the merits in part because the petitioners wanted relief beyond simple release and instead wanted the United States to protect them from criminal prosecution in Iraq. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 8:00 am by Jonathan H. Adler
I write separately to clarify that the first factor, delayed review, is not the primary driver of unfairness, and to note possibilities for curtailing the remaining factors. . . . [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 12:46 pm by Emily Beeken
Currently, the ICJ is considering whether it has jurisdiction to decide the case on the merits. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 9:13 am by John Knepper
The post Symposium: How to count to one appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
The merit action went on before the Court of Rome, where party-expert opinions were filed both in support of and against the validity of EP’ 077, and on the quantum of infringement damages. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 4:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because, “[w]here state action does not ‘infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation’ and does not ‘in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief,’ it does not violate the First Amendment. [read post]
Petitioners first became aware of the NOE on September 28, 2017 and requested Caltrans rescind the NOE or agree to a 180-day statute of limitations for challenging the decision. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 11:32 pm by Josh Blackman
First, consider this comment about the Federal Reserve: Insulation from political pressure helps ensure impartial adjudications. [read post]