Search for: "BOX v. STATE" Results 781 - 800 of 5,283
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Nov 2014, 2:45 am
" For example: V-RING for directional antennas, the primary components of which were shaped in the form of a "v" and a "ring;" CHAMBERED PIPE for an exhaust system consisting of a series of small tuning chambers; MATCHBOX SERIES for toys sold in boxes having the size and appearance of matchboxes; BEEFLAKES for frozen, thinly sliced beef; TOOBS for bathroom and kitchen fixtures in the shape of tubes; STRAIGHTS for straight legged jeans; WING NUT… [read post]
23 Sep 2020, 7:26 am by Eric Goldman
A federal district court preliminarily enjoined Executive Order 13943 seeking to kick WeChat out of the United States. [read post]
28 May 2019, 2:08 pm by Mark Walsh
The per curiam decision in the abortion-related case Box v. [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 8:17 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
  Our commitment to democracy stretches beyond the ballot box to distant shores where, every day, thousands of Native men and women fight proudly under the American flag. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 8:48 am by Jack Goldsmith
Marty Lederman says in response to my posts that the big difference between the Bush and Obama preemption doctrines was that the Bush Administration “argued that international law permits the United States to engage in a ‘first use’ strike, in a nonconsenting state, against a state or nonstate actor that has not already engaged in an armed attack against the United States, before any threat of attack is ‘fully formed’ — indeed,… [read post]
18 Dec 2007, 7:42 am
Box 48314 Olympia, WA 98504-8314 Phone: (360) 586-3558; (800) 634-4473 (V/TTY/Toll Free) Web: www.wa.gov/ddc Helping Hands for the Disabled P.O. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 6:13 am
Consequently, Gunter contests only the search of his data files conducted in the United States by U.S. officials.U.S. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2020, 11:41 am by Steven Pagach
The campaign sued Pennsylvania in an attempt to ban mail ballot drop boxes and to prevent other election procedural changes. [read post]
10 Oct 2009, 2:22 pm by Russell Mace
The Supreme Court of South Carolina previously ruled under State v. [read post]