Search for: "North v. State" Results 8541 - 8560 of 13,330
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Mar 2016, 1:07 pm by Alex R. McQuade
The video also warns “American imperialists” not to provoke the North. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 8:08 am by Martha Ertman
 Likewise, the 1879 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. [read post]
17 May 2017, 2:30 pm by Aurora Barnes
Gillette Commercial Operations North America and Subsidiaries v. [read post]
29 Jun 2019, 7:36 am by Sandy Levinson
” In those states, one must hope that state courts enforcing their own constitutions—the United States constitution is one of only 51 in the entire United States, and the other 50 constitutions all differ from the United States Constitution in important ways—to preclude partisan gerrymandering. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 6:33 am by Hans von Spakovsky
The Texas Attorney General’s announcement that the state will appeal a voter ID decision in Texas v. [read post]
31 Oct 2007, 11:52 pm
  I note that almost all states have abolished it with Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota and Utah being the exceptions. [read post]
25 Oct 2020, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat and Daniel B. Edelman
Constitution, including most notably the Equal Protection Clause.As noted in Bush v Gore, a state’s determination shall be “conclusive” only if made pursuant to a law “made prior to election day” by which the “state legislature has provided for final determination of contests or controversies . . . . [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 3:36 am by Russ Bensing
  A couple of months back, I wrote a post about State v. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 6:00 am by Christopher G. Hill
However, the Superior Court decided in Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 1:58 am by Dennis Crouch
June 2, 2015 Windy City sued Facebook in the Western District of North Carolina. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 3:28 pm by Amy Howe
(I covered one of those cases, United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 7:58 am by John Elwood
North Carolina, 11-6624, appears to be a straightforward hold for Martinez v. [read post]