Search for: "Spells v. State"
Results 921 - 940
of 2,273
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Dec 2012, 9:30 am
Indeed, a state official (think of Rick Perry) might quite explicitly say that he is not willing to subordinate his loyalty to the state constitution to the national Constitution, either on (reasonable) grounds that the Constitution is radically defective (which it is) or less reasonable grounds that he is no longer sure he wants to affirm the very notion of Union that the Constitution instantiates. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 2:54 am
In re Thomas, 79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1021, 1024 (TTAB 2006) (citing Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2016, 2:53 pm
Recently, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case, captioned Texas v. [read post]
22 Sep 2012, 3:00 am
The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled in a recent opinion, State of Tennessee v. [read post]
14 Sep 2022, 3:55 pm
From Yeshiva Univ. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 4:02 pm
(The case is docketed as 07A304, Emmett v. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 9:18 pm
But were a court to hold that Google’s algorithms “know” my emails the way a human employee would—and, accordingly, that I no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy under United States v. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 2:49 am
But years later, Marshall made his thoughts clear about the treaty clause in an 1823 decision called American Insurance Co. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 2:32 pm
The Weyhrauch case tests whether the law applies to a state official if that official did not violate any state law. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 4:08 am
” (That case, Gill v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 7:42 am
Citing the 2015 Florida Supreme Court decision in Sanislo v. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 2:00 am
State. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm
Finally, the Court also issued its opinion in United States v. [read post]
24 May 2019, 3:59 am
” Since the likelihood today is that the two highest-profile cases testing new laws as forbidden “bills of attainder” both involve President Trump or his Administration in one way or another, it is useful to note that the Supreme Court went the furthest to spell out the meaning of the clause in a famous decision in 1977, Nixon v. [read post]
10 Apr 2009, 7:42 pm
"Any effort, action, or demand by a creditor to collect a pre-petition debt violates the automatic stay".Regardless of the stay violation, Paul Hill contended that he could not be sanctioned for his action of posting the sign because of his entitlement to exercise his free speech right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, citing Turner Advertising Co. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 6:53 am
Galang, supra.The Court of Appeals begins the opinion, as courts usually do, by explaining how, and why, the prosecution arose:In 2004, the female victim came to the United States from the Philippines. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 11:20 am
Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in South Dakota v. [read post]
11 May 2010, 1:52 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 6:41 am
The United States analogue is Griswold v. [read post]
22 Jul 2022, 4:45 pm
Together, the framing problems on display in Aurelius and the lessons from the recently overturned Japanese-internment case Korematsu v. [read post]
