Search for: "Thomas v. Thomas et al" Results 941 - 960 of 1,399
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2008, 3:51 pm
For publication opinions today (2): In Board of Commissioners of LaPorte County, Board of Commissioners of Porter County, Town of Beverly Shores, et al v. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
Part of the answer is likely given by the null hypothesis: to Justices Thomas, Alito, et al, forcing women to endure pregnancies they would choose to end is not an injustice because allowing those women to have abortions of even six-week embryos is to allow what they regard as murder.But that's not the whole of the answer. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 9:06 am by Don Cruse
Opinion (Lehrmann): PDF Reddy Partnership/5900 North Freeway LP and Reddy Partnership, et al. v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 7:37 am by Bill Raftery
Washington, et. al., Cause No. 09SL-CC04530, for failure  to follow legal precedence (and specifying the cases allegedly not followed) and other accusations related to the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District, whose board membership the articles claim is made up of black elected officials. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 8:39 am by Don Cruse
Carlos Francisco Marroquin, et al., No. 09-0857 (docket and briefs). [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 4:26 am by Edith Roberts
’”At Casetext, David Boyle surveys the “’Christian’ amicus briefs” “either for Petitioners, Trump et al., or for neither party. [read post]
12 Feb 2010, 3:17 am
Valueclick, Inc. et al (Docket Report)   US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Nintendo - Saving progress... do not shut off console – Nintendo receives patent covering ‘Game machine, backup control program of game data and backup control method’ (Patent Arcade)   US Copyright USTR: No mandatory three strikes in ACTA (Michael Geist) US Government denies that ACTA mandates filtering or three strikes, but questions on its contents remain (Public… [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 7:31 am by Kent Scheidegger
In the honest services cases, Skilling et al., the Court saved a statute of dubious constitutionality by giving it a restrained interpretation. [read post]