Search for: "State v. Means"
Results 1261 - 1280
of 61,171
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2018, 10:31 am
“Just because people back then didn’t think it was irrational” for a state to pass anti-miscegenation laws, Barnett continued, “doesn’t mean that it was rational” under the actual text of the 14th Amendment. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 6:10 am
Initially, in State v. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 10:14 am
A recent court case out of Georgia -- State v. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 2:05 pm
Under the case law, "shall" can mean "may" when (1) it obviously doesn't mean "must" in the context of the statute's purpose;(2) reading it as "must" would lead to unjust consequences; or(3) reading it as "may" doesn't harm any public or private advantage, right, or benefit.In State v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:50 pm
The Supreme Court of the United States recently announced its ruling in the Wyeth v. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 7:42 am
State v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 2:45 pm
Brennan Center: Proving a Section 2 case is by no means an easy task, especially, as the Milligan opinion noted, at the congressional and state legislative levels. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 5:58 am
This means that an inspector may now ‘go behind’ a listing and re-determine its validity. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 9:00 pm
In Arizona v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 8:31 pm
Valasquez v. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 10:16 am
Circuit in Halbig v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 5:30 am
In Castellanos v. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 4:37 am
State v. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 9:12 am
If such provisions concern matters otherwise beyond Congress' legislative powers, the Constitution leaves their implementation to the States. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 2:14 am
Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe intervening) C-186/10; [2011] WLR (D) 259 “Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, signed on 23 November 1970 at Brussels and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 (OJ 1973 C 113 p17), had to be interpreted as meaning that it could be relied on by a Turkish national who, having… [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 7:17 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2009, 11:39 am
In its recent decision in State of Texas v. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 4:59 am
In LLOG Exploration Offshore, LLC v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 1:09 pm
What this means is that states will be able to continue (or expand) their efforts to require the collection of sales/use tax by online vendors. [read post]
