Search for: "State v. Laws" Results 8541 - 8560 of 156,945
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Sep 2011, 9:08 am by Kent Scheidegger
  The Supreme Court eventually struck down the New York law in Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2025, 9:30 pm by ernst
., Emory University School of Law, and Peter O'Neill, Stanford Law School, have posted The Forgotten Face of "Our Federalism,” which is forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal:Younger v. [read post]
15 Dec 2018, 3:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
This amendment set out New York State's response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al, 138 SCt 2448. [read post]
15 Dec 2018, 3:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
This amendment set out New York State's response to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Janus v American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al, 138 SCt 2448. [read post]
17 Jan 2022, 7:09 am by Eric Goldman
Jan. 10, 2022) Selected Related Posts About State Action Claims One More Time: Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Atkinson v. [read post]
19 Feb 2025, 1:53 pm by NARF
(Indian Child Welfare Act; Recognition) United States v. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 10:19 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Reuters covered the oral argument in Teva v. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 8:30 am by Dan Ernst
  Until August 31, Camridge Journals is letting us read it for free: Contested Meanings of Freedom: Workingmen's Wages, the Company Store System, and the Godcharles v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 8:10 am by Stefanie Levine
Click here for the remainder of The Current State of Patent Law . [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 8:10 am by Stefanie Levine
Click here for the remainder of The Current State of Patent Law . [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 12:00 am by SupremeCourtHaiku
Plea deal rejected Counsel wrong about the law State must reoffer Opinion:  pdf  html [read post]
18 May 2016, 5:45 am by Kevin LaCroix
  The Court held that § 27 would grant federal jurisdiction over state law claims only where the state law claims hinge entirely on a showing of a violation of the Exchange Act. [read post]