Search for: "Downs v State" Results 8721 - 8740 of 40,860
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jan 2020, 3:36 am by Edith Roberts
At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps looks at the story behind a state constitutional provision relied on by Montana in Espinoza v. [read post]
31 Jan 2020, 2:48 am by SHG
The case of the 27th Amendment, which was proposed with no time limit and did not reach the requisite number of states until more than two centuries later, suggests that contemporaneous “meeting of the minds” is not so intrinsic a feature of the amendment process as many legal scholars once assumed; on the other hand, a 1921 Supreme Court case, Dillon v. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 5:22 pm by India McKinney
But the landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision in Carpenter v. [read post]
With SpotterEDU, the data can be broken down based on race or between in-state and out-of-state students to look for “patterns in academic retention and performance. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 10:00 am by Jennifer Dalven
If that rings a bell, it’s because not even four years ago the Supreme Court struck down an identical Texas law in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 3:31 am
It just a few months ago that this blog reported on the Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev in the Sky v SkyKick, C-371/18 case.important A referral from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales made by Arnold J (as he then was), the Sky case is probably the most important referral in the EU trade mark field made over the past few years. [read post]
29 Jan 2020, 1:14 am by Asma Alouane
Meanwhile, the non-biological parent could adopt the child (See for a confirmation ECtHR, C and E v. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 4:39 pm by INFORRM
Claimant lawyers breathed a sigh of relief following the first Court of Appeal decision on serious harm in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1334 (see our blog here), handed down in September 2017. [read post]
28 Jan 2020, 1:15 pm by Evelyn Douek
Finally, the bylaws state that the board cannot review cases in which Facebook has taken down content under what the company decides is a legal obligation to do so. [read post]