Search for: "Texas v. New Jersey"
Results 941 - 960
of 1,095
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Nov 2019, 5:45 am
In light of states’ differing responses to the Wayfair v. [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 9:00 pm
Proponents of the surtax estimate that the Commonwealth will raise $2 billion in new annual revenue from the tax increase. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 6:57 am
The statute also allows punishment for false statements on matters of public concern, even without a showing of “actual malice” in the sense set forth by New York Times Co. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 7:28 am
Questions were most frequently received in 2022 from users in California, Florida, Texas, New York, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Ohio, and New Jersey. [read post]
12 May 2022, 3:12 pm
The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Arizona (2), California (3), Colorado (6), Connecticut (1), Delaware (1), Georgia (1), Iowa (2), Illinois (5), Kentucky (2), Massachusetts (4), Maryland (2), Maine (3), Minnesota (6), Missouri (1), Montana (1), North Carolina (2), New Hampshire (2), New Jersey (1), Nevada (2), New York (1), Ohio (3), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina (1), Texas (3), Utah (4),… [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 11:33 am
See Den-Tal-EZ v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 10:44 am
Click Here American Trucking Association et al. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 11:24 am
What meaning this old ruling, Perez v. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 5:00 am
(v) The tax brackets reported are for single individuals. [read post]
27 Oct 2019, 10:09 am
Huawei's counsel in the Unwired Planet v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 6:00 pm
V. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 2:00 pm
In 2001, Miller Cassidy merged with Baker Botts, a larger, Texas-based firm, and Barrett spent another year there before leaving for academia. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 6:27 am
[Alaska, California, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, District of Columbia]States have not acknowledged important needs of citizens and law researchers seeking government information; they have not been sufficiently deliberate in their policies and practices.No state's online primary legal resources are authenticated or afford ready authentication by standard methods.Eight states have provided for permanent public access (PPA) to one or more of their… [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 911 F.2d 941, 958-9 (3d Cir. 1990) (if New Jersey law requires plaintiffs to show that it is more likely than not that Bendectin caused the injury, and if plaintiffs rely solely on epidemiological analysis in order to avoid summary judgment, the relative risk from the epidemiological data relied upon will, at a minimum, have to exceed 2) Daubert v. [read post]
13 May 2010, 1:15 pm
A request for review of the appellate court’s decision was filed with the Supreme Court of California on March 9, 2010.New Jersey Federal District Court: Worker Not Entitled to New Trial on Damages for Pain and SufferingIn Romero v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 1:09 pm
Citizens, 1919-1924Conveners: Kenneth Mack, Harvard Law School (kmack@law.harvard.edu) Laurie Wood, Florida State University (lmwood@fsu.edu) Jacqueline Briggs, University of Toronto (jacq.briggs@utoronto.ca)John Wertheimer, Davidson College (jowertheimer@davidson.eduLaw and Empire in the Sino-Asian Context (Harvard Law School / TBD)12:00 PM – 4:30 PMLegal History and the Persistent Power of State and Local Governments (Cambridge Room)Moderators: Brooke… [read post]
2 Oct 2022, 9:00 pm
Under the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision in Texas v. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 5:45 am
Supreme Court’s Wayfair v. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 12:30 pm
New Jersey this week is a sneaky important win for the property rights of regular folks despite the parties being a private condemnor and a state. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
Harris County Bail Bond Bd., No. 05-20714 A decision finding that a Texas statute restricting solicitation of potential customers denied bail bondsmen their First Amendment rights is affirmed in part and reversed in part where all but one of the restrictions violated the bondsmen's right to commercial speech. [read post]
