Search for: "MILLS v. STATE" Results 1421 - 1440 of 2,007
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
”[2] Essentially the act freed the Court from hearing the countless number of run-of-the-mill cases that had been clogging its docket and gave it virtually complete discretion to choose the cases it would hear. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am by Eugene Volokh
New York State Liquor Authority[15] involved a New York law under which liquor distillers could not sell to wholesalers in New York except in accordance with a monthly price schedule that affirmed that prices in New York were no higher than the lowest prices charged in other states.[16] Healy v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 3:18 pm by Kiera Flynn
Spisak, in which the Supreme Court held that Mills v. [read post]
26 May 2023, 6:15 am by Edgar Chen
Similarly, in North Dakota, Chinese investment in a corn mill, originally welcomed as an economic boon, was scuttled after concerns were raised that the 370 acre farm, located near the Grand Forks Air Force Base, could be a staging ground for espionage, and a threat to the American food supply. [read post]
14 Jan 2021, 6:45 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
Background Beginning in 2003, the grievor, J.B., worked as a “third hand” operating the paper machine at the employer’s paper mill in Saint John, New Brunswick. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 12:34 pm by Steven Boutwell
Permitting agencies could also require existing sources of SO2 emissions to model their potential impact as part of any Title V modification or renewal application. [read post]
27 Nov 2010, 3:53 pm by Lawrence Solum
And in the political arena, the constitutional debates of the 1940s and '50s seem less relevant today than those of the Progressive era, when liberals first attacked the conservative Court as pro-business, and conservatives insisted that only the Court could defend liberty in the face of an out-of-control regulatory state. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 11:59 am by Kevin
The published opinion I referred to in my earlier post, United States v. [read post]