Search for: "High v State" Results 8901 - 8920 of 35,522
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jun 2018, 10:43 am by Theresa Lee and Emily Zhang
The level of “what ifs” may well be too high for this court’s comfort. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 9:26 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  More specifically, California state courts as well as federal courts in the Ninth Circuit have concluded (in light of Luther v. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 11:52 am by nflatow
Cooper, state appellate defender Valerie Newman said it was the justices’ hostility that surprised her the most. [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 5:53 am by Dave
  In R(TW)(No 2) v Hillingdon LBC [2019] EWHC 157 (Admin), the question for Rowena Collins-Rice, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, went one better in that she had to consider the methodological adequacy of Hillingdon’s review of the effect of its 10 year exclusion policy on Irish Travellers. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 9:05 am by Florian Mueller
The next court to look at this will presumably the United States District for the Southern District of Florida at next year's Motorola v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 6:17 pm by The Murray Law Firm
In fact, any such attorney should be immediately reported to the local State Bar Association. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 6:17 pm by The Murray Law Firm
In fact, any such attorney should be immediately reported to the local State Bar Association. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 7:32 am by Jason Rantanen
At a high level of generality, it sells components to Cisco. [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 4:43 am
If the law were indeed clearly established by our decisions "as of the time of the relevant state-court decision," Williams v. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 6:37 pm
PCAOB (the constitutionality of PCAOB) Skilling v. [read post]
17 Sep 2021, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Explaining that it is "well-settled [s]tate policy that appointments and promotions within the civil service system must be merit-based and, when 'practicable,' determined by competitive examination," as mandated by Article V §6 of the State Constitution, opined that "[t]he constitutional dictate does not create an absolute bar to civil service appointments and promotions without competitive examinations. [read post]
17 Sep 2021, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Explaining that it is "well-settled [s]tate policy that appointments and promotions within the civil service system must be merit-based and, when 'practicable,' determined by competitive examination," as mandated by Article V §6 of the State Constitution, opined that "[t]he constitutional dictate does not create an absolute bar to civil service appointments and promotions without competitive examinations. [read post]