Search for: "Smith v. Division of Administration" Results 81 - 100 of 471
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jun 2018, 1:43 pm by Rick Hills
” Perhaps future legislators and administrators will be able to dodge Masterpiece Cakeshop simply by keeping their mouthes shut about religion. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:35 am by tracey
& Ors v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2039 (Pat) (27 July 2011) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) (27 July 2011) Bowen (A Child) & Ors v The National Trust [2011] EWHC 1992 (QB) (27 July 2011) W v Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Plc [2011] EWHC 2020 (QB) (27 July 2011) Wright v Caan [2011] EWHC 1978 (QB) (27 July 2011) Divya & Ors v… [read post]
3 Nov 2020, 11:39 pm by Marty Lederman
Later this morning, the Supreme Court will hear argument in the most significant Religion Clause case of the Term, Fulton v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 7:31 pm
United States (1878) to Employment Division v. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 4:00 am by Anil Kalhan
Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court vacated the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA in 2020 when—by a 5-4 margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority—it decided Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 4:18 am
Here is subsection (d), starting on line 42:(d) The office division of state court administration (IC 33-24-6-1) shall administer a program to pay claims for reimbursement under this section. [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 3:00 am by Hull and Hull LLP
Smith - Click here for more information on David Smith. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 9:01 pm by John Dean
While there is a so-called “political question” doctrine, first established in Luther v. [read post]
24 Mar 2013, 10:59 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 36367, Feb. 27, 2013) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint about the 2010 Ramadan meal policy.In Smith v. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 8:23 am by Kalvis Golde
Briefly: At the National Review, William Haun argues that a petition pending before the Supreme Court gives the justices “an excellent opportunity to do what four justices recently expressed an interest in doing: ‘revisit’ Employment Division v. [read post]