Search for: "Line v. State"
Results 8241 - 8260
of 28,138
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Nov 2009, 9:32 pm
Plains Commerce Bank v. [read post]
23 May 2017, 10:08 am
In Shaw v. [read post]
2 Oct 2012, 3:32 pm
Those who do might understand then why I am blogging about a one-line decision. [read post]
7 Jan 2007, 8:27 am
In Monday's second argument, United Haulers Ass'n v. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 9:39 am
See, e.g., Spitz v. [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 7:10 pm
Back in 2006, the 5th Circuit in United States v. [read post]
28 May 2012, 1:41 pm
Services, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 1:36 pm
Law called Todd [who]. . . . was sitting in his car just east of the New York state line on Route 4 in Vermont when the taxi drove by. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 2:43 am
SEDLIK v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 4:57 am
Co. v. [read post]
19 Aug 2020, 4:00 am
Pellegrin v. [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 3:40 pm
The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari in Iancu v. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 4:00 am
Intact Insurance Company v Parsons, 2021 ABCA 123 (CanLII) [18] As stated in Vavilov at paras. 99, 102, review for reasonableness is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error”, but a review for justification, transparency and intelligibility. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 3:22 am
State v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 1:41 pm
”) Because referendum signatures have been submitted to California’s Secretary of State, the writ petition in Vandermost v. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 8:42 pm
She pointed the Court back to the second substantive issue on the merits, which was whether Prop. 8 crossed the line into classifying citizens for the sake of having a classification, singling them out for special invidious treatment by popular initiative -- clearly aiming directly at the holding in Romer v. [read post]
17 Jul 2007, 4:47 pm
See ASARCO Inc. v. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 12:43 pm
State: I love this line from this case: "What seems at first to be a legal problem frequently turns out to be a linguistic or a semantic problem. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 7:00 am
Today in our discussion of Sackett v. [read post]
