Search for: "States v. State" Results 7941 - 7960 of 258,465
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2011, 4:22 am by sally
Regina (HRH Sultan of Pahang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 616; [2011] WLR (D) 183 “The question of who was a head of state such as to attract state immunity was a matter for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and not for the court. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 11:01 am by Phillips & Associates
Supreme Court first recognized sexual harassment as sex discrimination in Meritor Savings Bank v. [read post]
23 Nov 2008, 11:49 am
  The Circular Letter rests its authority on the New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department, ruling on February 1, 2008, in the case of Martinez v. [read post]
15 May 2014, 12:05 pm by Wells Bennett
The AUMF provides authority to detain these individuals within the United States and transfer them out of the United States. [read post]
15 May 2013, 11:15 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
In this issue you will find: • Message from the Chair • Interior’s New Leasing Regulations: Preempting State and Local Taxation Authority • IRS Assault on Trust Resources • Notice 2012-75: The IRS Expands the Tax Exemption for Tribal general Welfare Programs • 25th Annual WSBA Indian Law Seminar • The Sovereign Immunity of Tribal Officials and Employees after Maxwell v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 12:11 pm
 Appellant makes an argument, it's not a very good one, and it gets rejected.But here's the somewhat unusual fact:The seizure at issue involved the United States seizing $100 million.For that amount of money at stake, you'd think that the appellant might be able to come up with some better arguments on appeal. [read post]
7 May 2018, 12:10 pm
Rebekah Daniel served honorably as a Lieutenant in the United States Navy, and she worked as a labor and delivery nurse stationed at the Naval Hospital in Bremerton, Washington. . . . [read post]
9 Feb 2017, 4:21 pm
 Hence the decision on the Due Process Clause.Going forward, the hardest part of the plaintiff's case remains the validity of the order with respect to people who've never been in the United States, since those individuals have more limited rights under the Due Process Clause. [read post]