Search for: "Holding v. State"
Results 1341 - 1360
of 63,282
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2017, 4:58 pm
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted that motion, holding that plaintiffs had not alleged falsity or materiality. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 2:48 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 9:04 am
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion (Pirani v. [read post]
19 May 2008, 3:07 am
He attempted to enter the United States by car ferry at Port Angeles, Washington. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 7:58 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 12:17 pm
Hold on, don't close the post, I'm posting because it arose out of the grounding of the M/V Cape Flattery, near Barbers Point, Oahu. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 6:29 am
On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 6:21 pm
What a district court giveth in United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 3:59 pm
After rage-tweeting throughout the oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 5:23 am
In United States v. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 4:48 am
But not all "constitutional" reforms require Article V constitutional amendments or constitutional conventions. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 6:41 pm
The United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Jerman v. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 8:31 am
Lee v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 9:54 am
Additionally, are there particular market facts and circumstances where the approach established by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Polygram Holding, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 10:22 am
In Inmacs Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 2:04 pm
Importantly—and noted in the Court’s holding—the fifty States retain authority to regulate abortions post-Dobbs: meaning each State can implement laws, and indeed, the States have. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 5:55 am
As we have previously written, in 2004, the United States Supreme Court, in Crawford v. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 10:18 pm
Scott v. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 10:44 am
In a 4-3 decision, justices of the Montana Supreme Court remanded the case of Kent v. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 5:00 am
To be sure that there could be no confusion over its holding that Zauderer rational review is not limited to disclosure requirements aimed at preventing consumer deception the Court expressly stated: To the extent that other cases in this circuit may be read as holding to the contrary and limiting Zauderer to cases in which the government points to an interest in correcting deception, we now overrule them.1See, e.g., Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. [read post]
