Search for: "Cost v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 31,400
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2024, 7:30 am
One example is United States v. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 9:00 pm
” In Strickland v. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 2:00 pm
Rich Ford: Tell us about Brown v. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 8:28 am
On May 6, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in Naranjo v. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Campbell v City of New York 2024 NY Slip Op 02772 Decided on May 21, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Campbell v City of New York 2024 NY Slip Op 02772 Decided on May 21, 2024 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 1:48 am
Wilkinson was separately represented and argues that Ten, as her employer, should cover her legal costs. [read post]
1 Jun 2024, 7:42 am
But that cannot be if the cost is to negative fair dealing. [read post]
31 May 2024, 2:08 pm
Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech and struck a blow against government censorship-by-proxy yesterday in NRA v. [read post]
31 May 2024, 11:58 am
In particular, hospitals often incur significant additional costs when treating the poorest patients, who are typically in the worst health. [read post]
31 May 2024, 10:44 am
Corp. v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 4:49 pm
British Columbia as a focal point, the author argues that the legal framing of Indigenous sacred land claims in terms of religious freedom carries significant costs. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:19 pm
Supreme Court case Allen v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:19 pm
Supreme Court case Allen v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:19 pm
Supreme Court case Allen v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 7:18 am
The case is Prosec Guards CC v Department of Public Works and Infrastructure and Others (2501/23; 2502/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 139 (24 May 2024). [read post]
29 May 2024, 2:09 pm
Haaland v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 11:19 am
In Purcell v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 6:54 am
" Congress never acted, and Tatel contends the 2009 compromise cost the liberals: "They sure paid a high price: an unrebutted opinion that criticized the VRA and, worse, endorsed a new 'equal sovereignty' doctrine with potentially profound implications," Tatel wrote of the principle that restricted Congress' ability to single out certain states, in this situation because of past discriminatory practices. [read post]
29 May 2024, 6:00 am
Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). [read post]