Search for: "Strong v. State"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 16,384
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Aug 2008, 10:43 am
U.S. v. [read post]
8 Jan 2018, 12:00 am
In Princeton Ophthalmic, LLC v. [read post]
19 Jul 2016, 2:02 pm
Lee" or by the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v White. [read post]
1 Jul 2009, 4:15 am
V. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 12:17 am
Yesterday, we posted most of the amici briefs in Sackett v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 8:12 am
This week, the United States Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling in Young v. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 3:51 pm
In April of this year, the Supreme Judicial Court explicitly stated in Commonwealth v. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 3:12 pm
It begins: Since the 2000 Florida debacle of Bush v. [read post]
16 Nov 2006, 6:36 am
[1] Ong v. [read post]
20 May 2009, 5:55 am
State v. [read post]
24 May 2013, 10:34 am
This takes us back to a case in 2005, NCTA v. [read post]
9 Sep 2012, 6:01 pm
That issue is complicated by the fact that Congress used its Spending Clause authority to strong-arm the states to change their drinking ages. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 4:41 am
Ben Stevens and Rick Georges are not only lawyers using opposing systems; they are proponents who advise on the use of technology in the law office.They have strong opinions, and they're not afraid to state them. [read post]
19 Oct 2006, 1:58 pm
These are strong words. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 2:54 am
In Kunitsyna v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 11:16 am
(B.), where the court stated, 50 The law on the question is clear. [read post]
27 Nov 2010, 12:13 pm
When his case came to Strasbourg, the applicant's argument chimed perfectly with a very strong trend in recent - and not so recent - European practice. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 2:36 pm
It did not happen, so competition remains strong in California, even with powerful consumer protections in place. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 2:36 pm
It did not happen, so competition remains strong in California, even with powerful consumer protections in place. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 11:46 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
