Search for: "Harris v. State"
Results 1161 - 1180
of 5,095
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Apr 2019, 11:38 am
On March 11, 2019, in State v. [read post]
17 Feb 2021, 3:34 am
His opposition consisted entirely of speculative and conclusory assertions (see Sang Seok NA v Schietroma, 163 AD3d 597, 599; Harris v Barbera, 163 AD3d 534, 535; Schadoff v Russ, 278 AD2d 222, 223). [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 1:14 pm
Brinker v. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 9:48 pm
Harris, joined by Justice Scalia. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 8:55 am
United States. [read post]
26 May 2007, 2:07 am
A judge will be on call to sign warrants and MADD will provide nurses to draw the blood.In the 1966 Supreme Court case of Schmerber v. [read post]
27 Oct 2007, 7:10 pm
See, e.g., Harris v. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 4:41 am
In Hutto v. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 6:25 am
In Lucia v. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 1:12 am
Today's post is shared from thehill.comLabor unions are at risk of having one of their most successful organizing tactics nullified by the Supreme Court.On Tuesday, the high court will hear oral arguments in Harris V. [read post]
30 Nov 2013, 9:30 am
Onwuteaka, individually.Case Style on complaint filed by AG: State of Texas v. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 3:40 pm
(Bell v. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 9:17 am
The case of Harris v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 8:17 am
Court of Appeals in Ohio was asked to consider in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. [read post]
15 Feb 2013, 9:36 am
The California Supreme Court just made a mixed up jumble of this mixed motive law in Harris v City of Santa Monica (2013) 13 C.D.O.S. 1516. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 10:12 am
Harris, 10-520, for Kurns v. [read post]
11 Aug 2013, 11:11 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 7:44 am
In the landmark case of United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 4:05 am
It is important to emphasize, therefore, just how unprecedented that challenge is—and the potentially profound impact it could have on countless federal spending programs if the Court were to embrace it.It has long been accepted, without a whisper of any constitutional doubt, that “[a]lthough participation in the Medicaid program is entirely optional, once a State elects to participate, it must comply with the requirements of the [Act],” Harris v. [read post]
