Search for: "BARNETT v. STATE"
Results 821 - 840
of 1,213
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2011, 1:14 pm
App. 2011); see also Napper, 322 S.W.3d at 242 (citing Estrada v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 12:26 am
In the courts: Duncombe & Ors v Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families [2011] UKSC 14 (30 March 2011): Supreme Court: Teachers employed by Sec of State to work abroad at European Schools entitled to the protection against unfair dismissal – see the Education Law Blog. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 4:47 pm
Fountain Quail has already done some recyclying in the Barnett Shale. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 8:25 am
A. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 11:08 pm
Barnett, Was the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Conditioned on Service in an Organized Militia? [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 12:09 pm
The amicus brief filed by Ilya Shapiro on behalf of the Cato Institute and Randy Barnett in the Sixth Circuit's Thomas More Law Center, et al., v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 1:25 pm
See NLRB v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 11:00 am
One year later, the Due Process challenge was upheld 5–4 in McDonald v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 8:31 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:38 am
Michael Kirkland of UPI discusses FCC v. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 8:56 am
One needn't expect more, I suppose, but it's not exactly high-order journalism -- more a skillful use of the ctrl-V function. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 1:14 pm
(Randy Barnett) I have blogged about this in the past, but the final published version of my article, Whence Comes Section One? [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:57 pm
” In re Barnett, 2 N.J. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 2:36 am
Further, as to the second prong, the plaintiff must plead and prove actual, ascertainable damages as a result of an attorney's negligence (see Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197, 211). [read post]
25 May 2011, 6:39 pm
(Link to the Judgement)The United States Supreme Court had to consider in AT & T v Concepcion if class action waivers in arbitration clauses were valid. [read post]
23 May 2011, 5:00 am
From a complaint filed last week in San Francisco: Michael M ____ v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 11:59 am
What Congress may not do under the Commerce Clause is explained in United States v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 11:23 am
As a result, if the Supreme Court adopts the activity/inactivity distinction, it seems likely that future Congresses will use whatever hook the Supreme Court says is required — and not one iota more — to make sure their laws pass judicial muster.We saw this with Congress’s reaction to United States v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 8:59 am
In Baptista v. [read post]
12 May 2011, 6:29 am
Briefly: At Just Enrichment, Michael Kenneally discusses Sorrell v. [read post]
