Search for: "Miller v. Dunn"
Results 141 - 160
of 198
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Apr 2019, 11:23 am
Fang G, Araujo V, Guerrant RL. (1991). [read post]
13 Mar 2019, 9:01 pm
The answer is yes, and the Supreme Court effectively made that clear four years ago in its important ruling in Arizona Legislature v. [read post]
29 Jun 2014, 9:01 pm
Courts can revisit their prior rulings, higher courts can change the legal landscape against which lower courts make decisions (as the Supreme Court in fact did in the immigration regulation setting in 2012 in Arizona v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 4:56 am
http://tinyurl.com/3z9svqa (Philip Gordon) No Duty to Disclose That Office Equipment Retained Data — Putnam Bank v. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 9:01 pm
In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations.Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 4:07 am
Network v. [read post]
20 Nov 2018, 11:32 am
Neli came to us after working as a marketing professional for Miller Mayer, LLP, an international law firm with a heavy emphasis on immigration law. [read post]
31 May 2017, 9:01 pm
The answer is yes, and the Supreme Court effectively made that clear two years ago in its important ruling in Arizona Legislature v. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 9:01 pm
And, most famously, in Obergefell v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 6:17 am
California Court Declines to Follow Race Tires, Allows Taxation of eDiscovery Costs - bit.ly/IZoWhW (K&L Gates) Peck Wins By Submission; Parties Get Shot At Title Fight - bit.ly/Jfheio (eLessons Learned) Random Sample Calculations And My Prediction That 300,000 Lawyers Will Be Using Random Sampling By 2022 – bit.ly/IBIaZ5 (Ralph Losey) “Reasonableness” is Key When Assessing E-Discovery Efforts – bit.ly/IZp7d9 (Mike Hamilton) Reducing… [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:01 pm
Davis v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:01 pm
Davis v. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 9:01 pm
In Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 9:01 pm
SB 1272 submits the following question (designated by the California Secretary of State as Proposition 49) to the California electorate for its input: Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
This was true in Rumsfeld v. [read post]
12 May 2019, 9:01 pm
” Critics assert, in particular, that the president seems oblivious to a 1993 Supreme Court ruling, Nixon v. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 9:01 pm
That case—G.G. v. [read post]
18 Jul 2009, 7:31 am
This post is by my colleagues Mark Schonfeld, John Sturc, Barry Goldsmith, Eric Creizman, Jennifer Colgan Halter, Akita St. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 5:29 am
http://bit.ly/OD6AI4 (@KevinOKeefe) Quinn Emanuel Partner Defending Samsung at Odds With Federal Judge - http://bit.ly/PsjynF (Amy Miller) Apple-Samsung Judge 'Livid' Over Document Disclosure - http://bit.ly/OwVyE6 (Charles Babcock) Apple Asks Court to Sanction Samsung - http://on.wsj.com/OwVqnW (Jessica Vascellaro, Ashby Jones) Apple v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 9:01 pm
., in Fullilove v. [read post]
