Search for: "DAVID v STATE FUND"
Results 121 - 140
of 2,152
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2013, 9:30 pm
Two well-funded gay couples from California, one gay, one lesbian, challenged California's proposition 8 in federal court back in 2008, and the case finally will be orally argued tomorrow at the SCOTUS.Their lawyers, Ted Olson and David Boies of Bush v Gore fame, are well-suited to the task of bringing the couples' privacy-based arguments to the Supreme Court. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 3:56 am
David Savage reports for the Los Angeles Times that “Supreme Court justices, both conservative and liberal, appeared skeptical Wednesday of a Trump administration argument” in County of Maui, Hawaii v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 9:36 pm
On May 9, 2011, United States District Judge David C. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 7:40 am
Court of Appeal Dismissing the importance of the chronology of when the charge was released, stating it to be “mere formalism”, all three judges of the Court of Appeal disagreed with David Donaldson QC. [read post]
6 May 2016, 3:37 am
It came after the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. [read post]
17 May 2007, 8:00 am
Unfortunately, because Legal Aid funding is constantly under threat, those supporting Legal Aid had a significant basis for concern that the funding for these services might be reduced by increased funding for self-help legal support. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 6:13 am
Thompson v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 12:49 pm
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. [read post]
2 May 2012, 5:00 am
James V. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 4:05 pm
(See Glom posts on SEC v. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 5:47 am
In Berry v Schmitt, the Sixth Circuit held that the Kentucky Bar Association (“KBA”) could not use Kentucky Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2(a) to bar an attorney, John Berry, from commenting on the Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission investigation of Senate President David Williams. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 4:05 am
Participating States must also comply with various other requirements, including those that protect against waste, fraud, and abuse; those that protect the health and safety, and the privacy, of Medicaid beneficiaries; those that ensure that the States adequately accomplish the goals of the program (see the recent decision in Douglas v. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 3:08 pm
Maybe taxpayers could choose between a fund for road maintenance, state aid to schools, or funding social services. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 11:15 am
Virginia in 1967, when only 17 states still banned interracial marriage; or Lawrence v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 5:28 am
That is, unless you are a late-filer plaintiff in the Pigford v. [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 8:37 am
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in London. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 9:33 pm
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. [read post]
31 Jan 2010, 2:29 am
Global Link Logistics, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 6:11 am
Part V then considers the governance implications of the market activities of the NSWF. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 1:59 pm
The lack of this exception in the proposed rule constitutes a material adverse business risk to state-registered fund advisers, a serious competitive detriment to our investors, and sets an unlevel playing field that threatens to limit the development and availability of private, state-registered fund management in states that adopt this rule. [read post]
