Search for: "State v. Bui"
Results 7881 - 7900
of 9,825
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2010, 2:47 pm
Not so fast, said the court, and cited a case we brought to your attention a few months ago - Hemi Group, LLC v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 12:51 pm
The court declined to buy into the argument, instead adopting the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Nemet Chevrolet v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 4:00 am
Contrast that with Nathan, et al. v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 11:57 am
The Second Circuit recently held, in Sharon Kaytor v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 8:35 am
What he did evaluate is whether there are any tangible benefits to the State recognizing only heterosexual marriage, and found -- based on credible social science testimony -- that none exists. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 4:24 am
” Carnegie v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 4:00 am
Sassower's buy-out. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 9:44 am
; and my personal favorite -- that because the United States is not party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, prior IACHR analysis (pertaining to a party to the CRC) on the rights of the child with respect to their parent's deportation proceeding was not relevant.The IACHR was not buying any of this. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 5:29 am
(7) Based on this information, Detective Martin set up surveillance and the controlled buy took place in Frattaroli's apartment [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 4:20 am
Sabinsa Corp. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:01 am
There are two meaty things to note about the opinion in Perry v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 3:46 pm
Cochran v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 2:40 pm
At any rate, the recent decision in Commonwealth of Virginia v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 12:28 pm
But we just can’t buy the ACLU’s arguments here. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 9:45 am
See, for example, the RECAP Archive page for United States of America v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 6:24 am
See New York-New York Hotel & Casino, LLC v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 4:29 am
Backstory of Beach DP, LLC v. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 4:57 pm
Judge Stephen V. [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 6:36 am
Greenhouse writes:It has been nearly three months since the court “invited” — that is to say, ordered — Solicitor General Elena Kagan to “express the views of the United States” on whether laws that take away the right to vote from people in prison or on parole can be challenged under the Voting Rights Act as racially discriminatory.The order came in a case from Massachusetts, Simmons v. [read post]
