Search for: "Rice v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 947
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2023, 5:36 am
Rice’s ruling preserved, for the time being, access to the drug in at least the 17 states involved, as well as the District of Columbia. [read post]
5 Dec 2024, 8:02 am
Wednesday morning I attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court for United States v. [read post]
19 May 2021, 3:08 pm
State of California (Indian Gaming)Monice C. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 8:10 am
Six years ago, in Buckman v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 2:46 pm
So the Montana Supreme Court holds, in Groo v. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 7:42 am
Rice, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 11:59 am
Hyatt Legal Clinics, 10 Ohio St .3d 112, 113, 461 N.E.2d 1295 (1984); Rice v. [read post]
29 Apr 2007, 9:39 am
Michelle Davis won in State v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 2:59 am
Here is the abstract: In Kansas v Hendricks, the Supreme Court held that it did not violate double jeopardy or substantive due process to commit a person indefinitely to a locked state-run facility after he had completed his maximum prison sentence. [read post]
11 Apr 2009, 7:47 am
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. [read post]
Precedential No. 2: TTAB Affirms Refusal to Register Proposed Multi-Color Mark for Breakfast Cereals
9 Jan 2024, 4:16 am
In re Post Foods, LLC, 2024 USPQ2d 25 (TTAB 2024) [precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas V. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:30 pm
Rice (08-1592). [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 1:08 pm
Rights of nature and Tribal sovereignty: Protecting natural communities, wild rice, and salmon in the United States. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 10:55 pm
These conclusions are reflected by the results in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 6:14 am
Rice? [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 4:21 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2020, 2:12 pm
State of Alaska (Indian Child Welfare Act) Klein v. [read post]
29 Mar 2019, 3:13 am
The hearing on April 16th will be held at Georgia State University College of Law in Atlanta. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 6:37 am
The case of Niemotko v. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 5:51 pm
Lit., the Court states that “[t]here is neither a bar nor a presumption against appointing foreign entities to serve as lead plaintiff, particularly where, as here, the defendant is a U.S. company and the foreign entities bought their shares in the United States”, in effect dismissing the res judicata concerns raised by other movants in relation to the appointment of a foreign entity as lead plaintiff. [read post]
