Search for: "State v. Adams
"
Results 1741 - 1760
of 5,046
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jun 2017, 9:34 am
State v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 3:05 pm
Nye Today’s ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 7:25 am
In Sekhar v. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 10:39 am
Adam J. [read post]
15 May 2023, 1:58 pm
In Kodiak Building Partners, LLC v. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 3:37 pm
” The case, McDonald, et al., v. [read post]
10 Apr 2011, 3:05 am
From the way Adam Liptak describes it, they're animals. [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 12:34 pm
, United States v. [read post]
22 May 2025, 6:57 am
The 1969 lawsuit, Bryson v. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 1:39 pm
Similar appeals across Ohio are before the court, pending its eventual decision in State v. [read post]
23 May 2010, 8:02 am
In 1997, in Kansas v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 5:20 am
In Loughrin v. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 6:15 am
Other coverage continued to focus on some of the other amicus briefs filed in Hollingsworth and United States v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 6:04 am
At the blog of the National Conference of State Legislatures, Lisa Soronen discusses the possible influence of the amicus brief filed by the State and Local Legal Center on Justice Anthony Kennedy’s recent concurring opinion in Direct Marketing Association v. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 2:22 pm
Consider, for example, the case of State v. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 3:50 am
Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that during yesterday’s argument in United States v. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 9:01 pm
Ryan Eddinger won in State v. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 11:31 pm
R (Cart) v The Upper Tribunal; Eba v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); and R (MR (Pakistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 14 – 17 March 2011. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
