Search for: "Burden v. North Dakota" Results 181 - 200 of 244
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Oct 2020, 8:20 am by Howard M. Wasserman
The car involved in the accident was designed in Michigan, assembled in Ontario, Canada, and sold to a dealership in North Dakota. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:15 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the Sept. 27, Oct. 8 and Oct. 15 conferences) North American Coal Corporation v. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 2:17 pm by John Elwood
In an age when members of the public can no longer bestir themselves to leave their vaguely couch-shaped objects to purchase needful items in person, South Dakota v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 6:35 am by Dan Carvajal
Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the South Dakota v. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 5:01 am by James Edward Maule
North Dakota, and the inability of legislators, state employees, and citizens to understand the limitations of the Due Process Clause. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 1:09 pm by Bexis
  One ground for not allowing plaintiffs to argue that products should be taken off the market altogether is that such after-the-fact recall duties would be excessively expensive:Duties to recall products impose significant burdens on manufacturers. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 5:45 am by Kevin Kaufman
For instance, Maryland permits local governments to provide a credit for expanding manufacturing facilities.[6] Similarly, Idaho allows counties to exempt TPP that is part of an investment of at least $500,000 in a new manufacturing plant for up to five years.[7] Seven states (Delaware, Hawaii,  Illinois, Iowa, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania)  exempt all TPP from taxation, while another five states (Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota,  and South… [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 8:25 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Furthermore, the Court found the circuit court erred in issuing the injunction as plaintiffs did not meet their burden for injunctive relief. [read post]
22 Oct 2011, 6:25 am
The court held that the burden imposed by the statute was not undue or excessive and the state had a compelling interest in having a minimum vote requirement before a candidate could appear on the general election ballot. [read post]