Search for: "Shields v. State" Results 1521 - 1540 of 5,102
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 May 2019, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
” So held the Appellate Division, Second Department in its April 24, 2019 decision in Mizrahi v. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 7:22 am by Steven Gursten
Supreme Court Upholds Right To Privacy In Drivers’ Personal Information On June 17, 2013, in Maracich v. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 11:39 pm
Koeltl, in an interim ruling, decided that Patricia Fry was not entitled to damages from the State Comptroller or his two deputies in their “personal capacity. [read post]
15 May 2020, 3:56 am by Edith Roberts
Washington and Colorado Department of State v. [read post]
7 Dec 2022, 8:55 am by Lawrence Solum
If a state’s sovereign acts were shielded but courts could subject commercial behaviors to antitrust review, it would add an important check on unaccountable state power. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman
”  As I explained in an earlier post, Congress intended RFRA to incorporate by reference the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence from the era preceding Employment Division v. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 5:02 am
The officer stated as he arrested the protesters that he was arresting them for violation of the tent ordinance. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 12:41 pm by Lyle Denniston
  He was wholeheartedly in favor of declaring that what went on between the school’s sponsoring church and its disobedient teacher was none of the government’s business, shielded behind a high wall of separation between church and state (higher, indeed, than Scalia usually is willing to defend). [read post]
29 Nov 2006, 2:55 pm
After Monday's argument in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2014, 11:13 am
Foley answered the complaint for BCBS by stating that BCBS’s real name is Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC), a mutual legal reserve company doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 10:57 am
The San Francisco-based court held that state law shields retirees' birth date and age from disclosure, but not their name and the amount of their pension. [read post]