Search for: "Phillips v. State Bar"
Results 161 - 180
of 554
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Mar 2014, 3:00 am
State of Louisiana v. [read post]
29 Jul 2008, 12:30 pm
Citing Phillips v. [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 12:07 pm
This seems consistent with United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 2:45 pm
Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock cites three cases that built on Title VII’s concept of sex discrimination: – Phillips v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 8:09 am
More on Baze v. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 8:36 am
Quoting West Virginia Board of Education v. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 6:16 am
Phillip H. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 10:19 am
Additionally, in Phillip v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
Phillips of the bar of the district of Columbia, of counsel), Sidley Austin LLP, London, UK (Tanisha Singh of counsel), Peer Defense Project, New York (Sarah Medina Camiscoli of counsel), and Public Counsel, Los Angeles, CA (Mark D. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
Phillips of the bar of the district of Columbia, of counsel), Sidley Austin LLP, London, UK (Tanisha Singh of counsel), Peer Defense Project, New York (Sarah Medina Camiscoli of counsel), and Public Counsel, Los Angeles, CA (Mark D. [read post]
20 Jan 2020, 6:36 am
Norris v. [read post]
15 May 2017, 3:52 pm
The baker, Jack Phillips, contends that the law violates the First Amendment by requiring Phillips to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs. [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 12:03 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 5:25 am
V.[9] Protocol, art. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 2:00 pm
Volume LXXXIII, No. 4 The PA Bar Assoc. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 7:08 pm
In Arista Networks, Inc. v. [read post]
7 May 2018, 7:39 am
Background on the Case In Edwards v. [read post]
31 Mar 2013, 4:29 am
People v Phillips, 7 Misc 3d 1004 (County Ct, Lawrence County 2005): The defendant did not possess a "billy" when he was found to have a "collapsible baton." [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 7:53 pm
The Court in Johnson v. [read post]
5 Jun 2018, 8:23 am
Unless pervasive discrimination or monopoly bars individuals from alternative providers, the state can’t justify prohibiting discrimination. [read post]
