Search for: "BUFF v. STATE" Results 61 - 80 of 141
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2017, 8:38 pm by Sandy Levinson
In theory, all that is required is a new state, but, of course, one cannot expect the beneficiaries of the single-member district process to get rid of it. [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
  Insight for privacy buffs: France J expressed doubt that ‘misappropriation of personality’ or ‘false-light privacy’ have a place in New Zealand’s tortious framework. [read post]
11 Apr 2009, 7:48 am
Thus, however obviously sensible it would be to join North Dakota and South Dakota together in "Dakota," that can't be done without the consent of each of the states (as well as Congress), and, of course, one cannot imagine circumstances where the Dakotas would decide that having two senators is better than the present four;2) the right, guaranteed in Article V, to each state to veto any change in the (indefensable) allocation of equal voting power in the… [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 1:50 pm by Sheila McCorkle - Guest
Although the Court held a few years ago in United States v. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 4:52 am by Hon. Richard G. Kopf
I am taking about an object a history buff might use in his or her basement to reenact a battle during the civil war. [read post]
12 Nov 2009, 6:33 am
After the jump, a new diversion for Supreme Court buffs. [read post]
17 Jun 2014, 8:13 am by Bob Eisenbach
(For bankruptcy buffs, Judge Breyer’s decision may also have been one of the first to cite the Supreme Court’s Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. [read post]