Search for: "State v. Stallings" Results 881 - 900 of 932
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Mar 2024, 5:50 am by Harold Hongju Koh
He saw a United States in turmoil after the January 6th Capitol attack, under former President Donald Trump. [read post]
30 Dec 2010, 10:54 am by Gene Quinn
We also have a controlled study in the United States relating to recognizing that strong patents rights spur economic growth and innovations that create new industries. [read post]
7 Jun 2015, 5:24 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court issued its 2010 decision in Morrison v. [read post]
13 Dec 2009, 8:58 pm by smtaber
— Christopher Joyce, National Public Radio, December 7, 2009 The United States has all the tools it needs to replace its old coal energy economy and drastically cut greenhouse emissions. [read post]
AB 883 would add section 432.6 to the Labor Code to prohibit a state or local agency from discriminating against current or former public employees in publishing job advertisements, in establishing qualifications for job eligibility, and in making adverse employment decisions. [read post]
26 May 2015, 9:51 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Security research continued, opponents Copyright Office: Jacqueline CharlesworthMichelle ChoeRegan Smith Cy DonnellySteve RuheJohn RileyStacy Cheney (NTIA) Opponents:Christian Troncoso, BSA | The Software Alliance: we support good faith security testing. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 7:00 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
That’s because unless cities have somewhere for displaced unhoused residents to go, the 2018 appellate case Martin v. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 7:10 am by Yosi Yahoudai
That’s because unless cities have somewhere for displaced unhoused residents to go, the 2018 appellate case Martin v. [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 8:02 am by Yosi Yahoudai
That’s because unless cities have somewhere for displaced unhoused residents to go, the 2018 appellate case Martin v. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 9:01 pm by John Dean
  These blocks and this stalling are undertaken for purely political reasons, not because the judicial nominee is not fully qualified for the bench. [read post]