Search for: "JAMES V. STATE"
Results 1501 - 1520
of 10,680
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2012, 11:15 am
United States, No. 11-182. [read post]
12 Oct 2014, 6:41 am
If such an order were issued, Texas would become the first state to be subject to preclearance in the post-Shelby County v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 8:30 am
The Court will hear appellate arguments in two cases (click the case name for more detail): 2-2:40 p.m.: State v. [read post]
31 Dec 2008, 11:05 am
United States, Dirks v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 12:31 pm
By Gregg Fisch, Rebecca Hirschklau, and James Hays In what is reported to be a landmark decision, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), in Macy v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
By James M. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 8:08 am
Problem 8 --James Madison, The Federalist No. 51 --Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 84 --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787 --Brutus II [Antifederalist Paper No. 84] --Poe v. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 7:16 am
State, 2009 Ga. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 8:11 am
Arizona v. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 5:26 am
Alexei V. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 4:14 pm
[i] See, e.g., James L. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 10:28 pm
Preemption v. [read post]
21 Feb 2009, 4:57 am
Arguing for Michael Rivera will be James K. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 11:37 am
She only made state law claims, which helped keep the case out of federal court. [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 5:40 am
See State v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 4:48 am
Click here to read this decision, Slayton v. [read post]
19 Oct 2007, 11:48 am
State of Indiana (NFP) James H. [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 6:00 am
It is styled, Sandra James v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 8:16 pm
James Kinder, No. 112,844 (Wyandotte)Sentencing appeal (petition for review)Samuel Schirer[Reversed; Nuss; January 5, 2018]Lack of jurisdiction to impose probation on sentence that had been servedMay 4--Thursday--a.m.State v. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 10:58 am
By James Pugh & Dave Lanferman On October 22, 2009, the California Supreme Court decided not to review the Court of Appeal's decision in the landmark Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. [read post]
