Search for: "State v. Lundgren" Results 61 - 80 of 96
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Sep 2009, 11:02 pm
I just noticed that an amicus brief was filed in one of the very interesting Supreme Court cases of the new Term, Graham v. [read post]
9 Jan 2024, 5:03 pm by Lundgren & Johnson, PSC
  Potential jurors are selected at random from from driver’s license, state identification, and voter registration records maintained by state government. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 4:34 am by Edith Roberts
Lundgren, in which the justices will consider tribal immunity from state-court actions to adjudicate title to land. [read post]
25 May 2018, 4:15 am by Edith Roberts
” At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy highlights Janus v. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 3:25 pm by Meg Martin
The case most analogous to the present one was City of Cheyenne v. [read post]
31 May 2018, 4:20 am by Edith Roberts
Lundgren, in which the justices remanded a property dispute involving an Indian tribe to the lower court, “resolved virtually nothing,” “Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Kennedy, wrote an intriguing concurrence, which, taken to its logical conclusion, broadly undermines the basis for much of the Court’s own case law involving the sovereign immunity of US states. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 4:07 pm by Lundgren & Johnson, PSC
Cloud, where they complete intake and are eventually transported to their assigned facility in the State. [read post]
22 May 2018, 4:31 am by Edith Roberts
United States, which asks whether stock options are taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and Chavez-Meza v. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 4:36 am by Edith Roberts
Lundgren, in which the justices considered tribal immunity from state-court actions to adjudicate title to land, and United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 4:17 am by Edith Roberts
Lundgren, in which they considered tribal immunity from state-court actions to adjudicate title to land. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 5:13 am
In other words, only the State or Council 82 could sue the other for any alleged breach of the contract.* Finally the Appellate Division ruled that LeBlanc's reliance on a claim that the officers are third-party beneficiaries of the contract between the State and Council 82 “is equally misplaced,” citing Lundgren v Kaufman Astoria Studios, 261 AD2d 513. [read post]