Search for: "Pass v. State"
Results 9301 - 9320
of 28,443
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Oct 2008, 12:30 pm
Jésus Trilla-Pinero v. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 4:00 am
There is no originalism in the majority opinion except for passing references to quite general statements made by Hamilton and Madison. [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 11:30 pm
State procurement has been in a state of flux over the last three years following a number of developments in the enforceability of the legal framework. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 9:01 pm
In Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
5 Nov 2017, 6:02 am
Madden v. [read post]
26 May 2020, 10:29 am
But I know our readers are interested in this question, so I thought I'd pass along the Justices' most detailed discussion of the issue, from City of Boerne v. [read post]
13 Mar 2023, 8:56 am
Here, there is no transfer of personal data because the data are not passed by an exporter (controller or processor) but by the data subject herself. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 1:15 pm
--Court: United States District Court for the District of New JerseyOpinion Date: 3/29/12Cite: Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 6:05 am
I suppose for Connecticut, the Ricci v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 11:41 am
Specifically, they refer to the case Ekelshot-Kumelj, et al v. [read post]
3 Mar 2020, 9:01 pm
On this question, the Second Circuit said that the statute authorizing Byrne grants conferred authority upon DOJ to require compliance with § 1373 insofar as the statute Congress passed requires grant applicants to certify they will comply with “all other applicable laws. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 7:11 am
In H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jul 2015, 4:30 am
The latest episode of the UK saga “and what do we do with data retention laws” has been issued by the English High Court, with its judgement in the case David Davis and Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin). [read post]
24 Sep 2020, 5:25 am
In her majority opinion in United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 5:08 am
The decision is about likelihood of confusion, reputed trade marks' extended protection, and passing off.* The Naked Truth: use of BARELY THERE wasn't even barely thereAnother Irish Patents Office’s decision that Jeremy reports is HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises LLC v Dunnes Stores Ireland Company. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 10:00 pm
(Along the way, the Adelmann-Chester court cited Reeves v. [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 2:36 pm
Moreover, a number of states have passed or are considering legislation similar to or designed to address the same concerns as the Illinois BIPA. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 4:32 am
By Mike Dorf My latest Verdict column discusses last week's SCOTUS decision in Filarsky v. [read post]
20 Sep 2020, 9:01 pm
Ohio (1961), which held that evidence seized unlawfully by the police could not be introduced in a state criminal prosecution, and Gideon v. [read post]
