Search for: "Reach v. State"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 37,342
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2024, 4:33 am
There aren’t a lot of cases on the statute either but there is a Superior Court case from 1996 (Blackwell v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 4:05 am
In LePage v. [read post]
SCOTUS Repeated Relisting of a Case on the Meaning of Race Neutrality--and a Plug for my new Article
19 Feb 2024, 4:00 am
Nevertheless, recognizing the conservative judiciary’s potential hostility to that distinction, the Article practices ideological jujitsu by redeploying Palmer v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
State v. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 12:22 am
Likewise, pursuant to Articles 35 and 79 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 365 of the UPC Rules of Procedure, a settlement reached through the PMAC – either by mediation or by arbitration in the form of a consent award – can be confirmed by a decision of the Court which is enforceable as a national court decision in the Contracting Member State where the enforcement takes place in line with Rule 365 of UPC Rules of Procedure. [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 5:29 pm
The closest to reach the merits of a removal claim, Colucci v Canastra (130 AD3d 1268 [3d Dept 2015]), ruled that four shareholders of a corporation that owned and operated a golf course “submitted prima facie evidence” warranting a trial whether “there was cause for defendant’s removal due to his use of Hillcrest’s profits to pay for clubhouse operations that only benefitted him. [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 6:45 am
However, what happens if no such agreement over venue is reached for resolving a contractual dispute? [read post]
18 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
Quoting an article by Felix Frankfurter from 1916, and also citing Ernst Freund, Post states that Progressives had repudiated Lochner v. [read post]
17 Feb 2024, 11:36 am
From Teising v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 5:44 pm
Here at least the labor specialization of states has produced something quite interesting. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 12:13 pm
Then, in Lexmark v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 11:27 am
Van Dyke dissented, arguing that his colleagues had “pull[ed] the plug on a case that – even now – still has some life in it” and that if they had reached the merits, Washington state’s map was indeed a racial gerrymander that “cannot survive strict scrutiny. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 7:00 am
At the state level, in Virginia, the same 1924 legislative session originated both the eugenical sterizilization act at issue in Buck v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
See, e.g., Lochner v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 5:46 am
You won't have different states using different procedures and reaching different results. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 4:27 am
Given the circumstances presented, the names of the business contractors seem well within reach of the “commercial” threshold of Exemption 4—which I hope will be borne out on remand. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 11:41 pm
” That case, now styled Murthy v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 3:33 pm
Bose Corp. v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:22 am
(Accent Delight), an offshore company with Dmitry Rybolovlev as the ultimate beneficial owner, v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. [read post]
