Search for: "GRAVES v. STATE" Results 161 - 180 of 2,423
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Sep 2010, 2:32 pm by Eugene Volokh
That concurrence said, “While I fully concur in today’s majority opinion, I write separately to briefly state that in addition to the reasons set forth by the majority to conclude that Issue II has no merit, I would also rely on the reasoning set forth in the dissent in Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 12:35 pm by Beth Graham
In the pending investor-state-dispute-settlement case under an older but parallel North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) investment clause, an American pharmaceutical company, in Eli Lilly v. [read post]
26 May 2023, 1:14 pm by Joel R. Brandes
 [Germany][Grave risk of harm][Petition granted][ ameliorative measure]  In Radu v Shon, 2023 WL 142908 (D. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 11:55 am by Benjamin Wittes
Department of State, has the following analysis of the International Court of Justice’s decision Friday in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 2:09 pm by Native American Rights Fund
University of California (Native American Graves and Repatriation Act) McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. [read post]
14 Nov 2006, 3:30 am
The VA has approved symbols of 38 other faiths, but has delayed for years a ruling on requests by families of Wiccan veterans.In Circle Sanctuary v. [read post]
28 Aug 2024, 12:18 pm by Unknown
(Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); Carlisle Indian School) Danderson v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 2:27 pm
The problem, as our Hollywood car accident lawyers know, was that state laws vary when it comes to liability, so the federal government sought to establish a uniform standard via the Graves Amendment. [read post]
26 May 2023, 12:58 pm by Joel R. Brandes
[Italy][Habitual residence][Petition granted] In Moretti v Braga, 2023 WL 3590690 ( N.D. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 12:00 pm
”The court found none of the above circumstances present, explaining, “[Plaintiff] has not advanced any facts to show that the forum selection clause specifically was obtained by fraud or overreaching…[and Plaintiff] offered no evidence that it will be gravely inconvenient or that it would be unfair to litigate this case in the forum state to which it agreed. [read post]