Search for: "United States v. Minor"
Results 1761 - 1780
of 7,096
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2019, 12:12 pm
The court refers to its prior affirmance of the FCC’s common carrier reclassification decision, United States Telecommunications Ass’n. v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 12:12 pm
The court refers to its prior affirmance of the FCC’s common carrier reclassification decision, United States Telecommunications Ass’n. v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 11:39 am
This edited volume is part of a collaboration among law professors and others to rewrite, from a feminist perspective, key judicial decisions in the United States. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 6:50 am
Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, states the Internet Stroke Center. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am
United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960); see State v. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 9:05 am
The initial volume, Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court, edited by Kathryn M. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 6:05 am
Sometime between August 31, 2018 and September 3, 2018, Mother moved with Son V to the United States. [read post]
29 Sep 2019, 4:15 pm
State Farm Mut. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 1:47 pm
CSX and Norfolk Southern are railroad companies operating in the eastern United States and Canada. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 8:12 am
Simmons (joined by Stevens), rendering minors ineligible for the death sentence, was bolstered by its 2012 ruling in Miller v. [read post]
25 Sep 2019, 2:00 pm
Hasday* When the State of California and Planned Parenthood recently sued the Trump Administration over regulations implementing an abortion gag rule,[1] they must have thought they had a good chance before the famously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [read post]
23 Sep 2019, 4:41 pm
Facts: This case (LIPTON et al v. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 9:56 am
United States, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of a tax exemption to a university that banned interracial dating by its students, and that threatened to expel students who violated the ban.[7] Likewise, in Christian Legal Society v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 4:12 pm
Rather, the employer’s position was typical of the “hard bargaining” between the parties, marked by “various states of deadlock for years,” during which both sides only made “minor concessions. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 10:02 am
See Daubert v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 10:02 am
See Daubert v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 9:06 am
The issues were: (1) whether ECHR Article 8 was engaged; (2) whether the SWP’s activities were “in accordance with the law”; and (3) whether the SWP’s activities were “necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of one of the objectives stated in Article 8(2), in accordance with the four-part test set out by the UK Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. [read post]
14 Sep 2019, 7:38 am
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Elhady v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 10:12 am
In Garris v. [read post]
