Search for: "May v. Austin"
Results 1701 - 1720
of 2,237
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Aug 2011, 3:55 pm
City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109, 116 (Tex. 1999). [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 1:36 am
– Austin 1987). [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 5:52 pm
—Austin 2006, no pet.). [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 4:28 pm
—Austin 2009, pet. denied) (citing Cole v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 3:30 am
Brian also reviews Wal-Mart v. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 10:50 am
-Austin 1999, no pet. ); Carlisle v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 11:53 am
In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District 1 v Holder (2009) Roberts noted that section 5 broadly requires all changes at all levels to gain pre-clearance, a requirement that the Court seems to view as impermissibly intruding on state and local rights and responsibilities. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 11:03 am
--Austin 2009, pet. denied) (quoting Wingate v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 6:45 am
Austin 2009, ___) [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 7:04 am
Additionally, Section 38.001 says a third party beneficiary may also recover attorney fees. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 5:25 pm
Welch v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 11:51 pm
He explained why in an op-ed for the Austin American-Statesman. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 9:59 am
" Bhuiyan's lawsuit, Bhuiyan v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 1:26 pm
The court reviewed a prior case, Austin v. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 3:16 pm
Co. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 6:35 am
" Citing an Austin Court of Appeals case, Jones v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 1:50 am
Carlton suggests that the OFT's Nina Caplin (lawyer) and Mike Lambourne (policy) may be able to offer some guidance. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 3:47 pm
Update: It is interesting to contrast the Court’s willingness to give Congress more time to reconsider the Voting Rights Act in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. [read post]
2 Jul 2011, 4:27 am
Eckman v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 12:00 pm
NAACP of Austin, et al., No. 09-0420 (DB). [read post]
