Search for: "Reading v. Attorney General"
Results 8001 - 8020
of 14,178
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2010, 7:38 am
” The case is McCarrell v. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 7:44 am
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Shelby County’s motion for summary judgment, and grant the motions for summary judgment filed by the Attorney General and the defendant-intervenors. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 7:48 pm
Supreme Court case entitled, Jacobson v. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 7:48 pm
Supreme Court case entitled, Jacobson v. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 10:17 am
The last case in this category I want to look at is the Spycatcher trial (HM Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers). [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 6:45 am
Intellectual Science and Technology, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 4:43 am
See ING Insurance Company of Canada v. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 5:28 pm
The case names of the newest decisions start with Section 3 and are denoted by bold italic fonts. 2016 CEQA UPDATE To read the 2016 cumulative CEQA review, click here. [read post]
7 Aug 2023, 4:40 am
Relying upon pre-CPLR case law from almost 80 years ago is generally a risky proposition. [read post]
7 May 2020, 6:30 am
A few years ago, the Attorney General of Kansas summarily withdrew a brief in an important case about abortion rights within which a junior attorney cited and quoted Dred Scott (erroneously, as it turned out). [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 6:58 am
v. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 1:33 pm
In the November 21, 2012 opinion of Terry v. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 12:00 am
” Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 1:38 am
Read-the-whole-case rating: 2.Ontario (Attorney General) v. 8477 Darlington Crescent. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 12:57 pm
In Kaye v. [read post]
7 Jul 2024, 9:06 pm
Olson—and the power to manage the Attorney General, over whom the President has a plenary power of removal. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm
” In General. [read post]
20 Nov 2020, 10:54 am
Circuit’s reading conflicts with Congress’ intent in the CARES Act and with decisions by the U.S. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 6:00 am
The court explained: While we believe that the intent of Congress is clear from a plain reading of the words used in [Section 28(b)], the legislative history explains unequivocally the very limited scope of attorneys’ fees awards under the statute. [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 6:00 am
The court explained: While we believe that the intent of Congress is clear from a plain reading of the words used in [Section 28(b)], the legislative history explains unequivocally the very limited scope of attorneys’ fees awards under the statute. [read post]
