Search for: "Gay v. State"
Results 1901 - 1920
of 3,770
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Apr 2011, 10:55 pm
The report rightly stated that the use of control orders was under review. [read post]
3 Aug 2008, 1:23 am
Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 6:20 pm
GUNDY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [read post]
14 Jul 2024, 6:30 am
In 1986, in Bowers v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 9:45 am
Lawrence overruled “one of the most harmful Supreme Court decisions in lesbian and gay law,” Bowers v. [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 9:10 pm
Think of the elderly, as Scalia did in his surely-by-now-regretted dissent in Lawrence v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 6:28 am
She was one of the first members to openly support legislation for gay rights by introducing the Equality Act of 1974. [read post]
2 Oct 2010, 9:13 am
United States Hollis King Kentucky v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 8:16 am
” Justice Kennedy’s legacy will show his favor for gay rights starting as early as 1996 when he wrote the Court’s opinion in Romer v. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 4:10 am
Winn involves a church-state challenge to Arizona's tuition tax credits (background), while Snyder v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 3:23 pm
United States and Miller v. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 9:53 am
Smith has never designed a wedding website for anyone, straight or gay. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 3:09 pm
Rothschild, ruled in Buell & Moffett v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 6:42 am
McMillen v. [read post]
Wedding Bells In Virginia District Courts: Rule 23 Class Certification for Virginia Same Sex Couples
18 Feb 2014, 5:15 pm
Citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2009, 2:22 pm
Affirming a grant of summary judgment to the employer in Pedreira v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 2:05 pm
Day Two of Witt v. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 6:59 pm
The court also upheld CADA under Employment Division v. [read post]
21 May 2009, 3:55 am
The lawsuit is Gill et al. v. [read post]
30 Nov 2021, 6:14 am
The State, in which the appeals court held that section 164(c) was constitutional because gay men and women did not then constitute a “group or class requiring constitutional protection. [read post]
