Search for: "STATE V. POWERS"
Results 8921 - 8940
of 41,395
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Sep 2020, 2:31 pm
Neither the federal nor state constitution suggests an elevation of legislative or executive power over individual rights. [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 9:09 am
State v. [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 6:30 am
Supreme Court held in Rucho v. [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 6:05 am
At the Brennan Center, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy examines how political donations in state attorney general elections may be influencing some of the Republican attorneys general who are suing to dismantle the Affordable Care Act in California v. [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 5:24 am
Here is the opinion: S238544 An excerpt: This is a case about how California law applies to the delicate juncture of executive power, federalism, and tribal sovereignty. [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 1:01 am
The case of United States v. [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 12:54 am
The court considered a number of authorities in this regard, including X and Y v The Netherlands (App no 8978/80) and KU v Finland (App no 2872/02), in which the Strasbourg court had indicated that ECHR, art 8 placed a positive obligation on states to put in place effective deterrence measures against activities which may pose a threat to fundamental values and essential aspects of the private lives of individuals, particularly children and other vulnerable persons. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 7:32 pm
Judge Griffith had the opinion for the court in Committee on the Judiciary v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 2:36 pm
"] From Friday's decision in Doe v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 1:37 pm
" See State v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 1:13 pm
In Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 12:44 pm
If you have not yet read United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 11:10 am
United States [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 9:30 am
(Wesch v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 9:30 am
(Wesch v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 9:24 am
San Diego Community Power’s RPS Plan deficiencies recognized by the CPUC included (i) a more robust assessment of risk was needed, (ii) clarification of whether San Diego anticipated being able to use its excess renewable resources to meet its Minimum Margin of Procurement (MMoP), (iii) more detailed information on the bid solicitation protocol when procurement activities commence, (iv) how it will address curtailment concerns, and (v) additional description of the… [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 8:51 am
I’ve discussed the continuing litigation between White Oak Power Constructors v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 6:54 am
Coleman v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 6:00 am
Buchta v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
California et al. v. [read post]
