Search for: "Scaling v. State"
Results 1221 - 1240
of 4,700
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2011, 9:55 pm
In Joyce v Ford Motor Company, No. [read post]
25 Apr 2025, 7:22 am
By: Annette Tyman, Rachel V. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 9:01 pm
On August 24, 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of state-law securities claims in Kirschner v. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 3:15 pm
And in NAACP v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 7:30 pm
Jacoby v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 12:56 pm
Under "New Jersey," we noted that the state’s supreme court had specifically approved the practice in Stempler v. [read post]
21 Jan 2012, 8:56 am
But, following its own decision in Rivera, the court held that the new version of 1B1.10 does not apply retroactively.In United States v Murph, No. 10-1555-cr (2d Cir. [read post]
29 May 2008, 9:18 am
" See State v. [read post]
9 Jul 2024, 7:14 am
Just when we thought Member States had succeeded in removing many of the most concerning crimes from the convention’s text, they could be making a reappearance. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 11:56 am
The Supreme Court in State v. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 6:16 am
Costa v. [read post]
30 Jun 2021, 12:04 pm
” If the next election comes down to one state, he says, “we are not in a situation right now where we could stand a Bush v. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 2:10 pm
Pulka v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 12:59 pm
Follow us on this quick legal journey (judges, ask a PD to help you out on the law)In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2017, 10:29 am
§ 240.10b-5. [4] See Basic Inc. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2017, 10:29 am
§ 240.10b-5. [4] See Basic Inc. v. [read post]
19 May 2023, 4:00 am
Length and mass are different measures, but we have means of converting based on familiar objects that provide a relative scale. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 8:36 am
Kisor v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 2:34 pm
First up was Holt v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 4:56 am
Accordingly, the Appellate Division, citing the Court of Appeals ruling in Tolub v Evans, 58 NY2d 1, held that OCA’s action “does not offend due process,” because in matters concerning the State’s budget, “equal protection does not require that all classifications be made with mathematical precision. [read post]
