Search for: "State v. So "
Results 7961 - 7980
of 116,395
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Nov 2020, 4:00 am
" Snyder v. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 2:03 pm
(Eugene Volokh) So the Ninth Circuit holds today in United States v. [read post]
21 Aug 2010, 7:35 pm
The judge dismissed the piracy charges, citing U.S. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2007, 7:51 am
Oral arguments in Microsoft v. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 10:23 am
A. v. [read post]
9 Sep 2021, 3:09 pm
Thanks to precedents like United States v. [read post]
21 Mar 2013, 10:48 am
So the promise of Gideon back in 1963 has been hindered by budgetary considerations in 2013. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 3:21 am
In Shipbuilders Council v. [read post]
8 Apr 2016, 3:00 am
Lord Sumption stated, “A system designed to prevent double taxation on the consideration for goods has been exploited so as to prevent any taxation on the consideration at all. [read post]
29 Aug 2007, 5:02 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 3:00 am
As in Scheck v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 3:21 pm
In Acosta v Acosta, 2012 WL 2178982 (D.Minn.) [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 4:51 am
[7] West Virginia v. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 11:44 am
The panel was right -- a Ninth Circuit case from 2012 had involved the identical issue, and has expressly so held.But Judge Berzon concurred, stating that although she agreed that circuit precedent dictated the result, the prior panel had gotten the issue wrong, and urged that the case be taken en banc. [read post]
8 May 2022, 5:00 am
So yeah, it’s possible. [read post]
[Sasha Volokh] How a state dentistry board hounded non-dentist teeth-whiteners out of North Carolina
28 Jan 2014, 10:01 am
Yesterday, I wrote about the doctrine that “state action” is immune from federal antitrust law, a doctrine that dates back to the Parker v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 6:49 am
Co. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2024, 9:01 am
All of the other cases have failed, and so has this one. [read post]
29 Jun 2013, 12:12 am
Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 2:46 pm
A snippet:"Water is a resource for which '[o]wnership . . . is vested [collectively] in the state’s residents.' . . . [read post]
