Search for: "State v. Davis" Results 981 - 1000 of 6,170
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2011, 8:36 am by Jon Sands
Sessoms v Runnels, No. 08-17790 (6-3-11)(Tallman with Rawlinson; dissent by B. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 3:55 pm by Lyle Denniston
Although the Supreme Court in late June, in the case of Obergefell v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 9:10 pm
Sauvant, The Negotiations of the United Nations Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations: Experience and Lessons Learned Sotonye Frank, Stabilisation Clauses and Foreign Direct Investment: Presumptions versus Realities Michael Trebilcock, Between Theories of Trade and Development: The Future of the World Trading System Benn McGrady, Principles of Non-Discrimination after US – Clove Cigarettes, US – Tuna II, US – COOL and EC – Seal Products and their Implications for… [read post]
17 Jun 2020, 1:15 pm by Eileen McDermott
The Court affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s finding that the lawsuits against Amazon and its customers—Patreon, Vox Media, Dictionary.com, Vice Media, Oath, Inc., Buzzfeed, Popsugar and Ziff Davis—were barred in part by a 1907 Supreme Court ruling, Kessler v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 5:51 am by Stefan Passantino
 Davis’ note undertakes a thorough analysis of pay-to-play and Supreme Court jurisprudence as articulated through cases such as McCutcheon v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 5:51 am by Stefan Passantino
 Davis’ note undertakes a thorough analysis of pay-to-play and Supreme Court jurisprudence as articulated through cases such as McCutcheon v. [read post]
29 May 2015, 11:30 am
This perspective is derived from the Tennessee Supreme Court's articulation in Davis v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 4:43 pm by Hannah Kiddoo
Opening with a clip of the band the Blue Notes performing in the 1970s, Davis and Soocher introduced the case of Cummings v. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 10:29 pm
The Second Circuit has held that “overreaching attempts to dismiss appeals as frivolous . . . will not be accorded a friendly reception,” and in United States v. [read post]