Search for: "STATE v. STEVENS" Results 1721 - 1740 of 7,825
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 May 2018, 10:26 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Strange as a defendant, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.Plaintiffs were not required to submit an affidavit of merit or make any other evidentiary showing in support of their motion (see Berkeley Research Group, LLC v FTI Consulting, Inc., 157 AD3d 486, 490, 69 N.Y.S.3d 26 [1st Dept 2018]; Hickey v Steven E. [read post]
24 May 2007, 5:35 am
Not content to widen doctrines on the margins, Justice Stevens' majority opinion blazed a new path through the law of standing and unearthed newfound regulatory authority for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. [read post]
19 Jan 2007, 4:06 pm
The application was 06A678, Coalition to Defender Affirmative Action, et al., v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 3:19 am by Lisa McElroy
In other big First Amendment news this week, the Court decided United States v. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 1:30 am by Blog Editorial
Eadie QC: yes. 15.20 Eadie QC submits that Parliament set up a legislative scheme under the 1972 Act by way that actions by the UK Government and those of other member states flow back to affect member states. [read post]
11 Jun 2007, 1:00 pm
National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, here. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 8:12 am by Amy Howe
Hodges, holding that states must license marriages between same-sex couples, continues to spawn coverage and commentary. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 8:05 am
And Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court in Carachuri-Rosendo v. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
From SSRN:Jianlin Chen, Deconstructing the Religious Free Market, (3 Journal of Law, Religion and State 1-24 (2014)).Russell G. [read post]
11 Sep 2017, 4:29 am by Edith Roberts
” At In a Crowded Theater, Erica Goldberg considers the free-exercise arguments put forward by the petitioners in the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
16 May 2013, 7:14 am by Gene Quinn
While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. [read post]