Search for: "Frank v. Superior Court" Results 81 - 100 of 367
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jul 2020, 5:02 am by Eugene Volokh
The Alaska Supreme Court has, since 1979, interpreted the Alaska Constitution as presumptively requiring religious exemptions from generally applicable laws; but the court held that this presumption is rebutted here: Alaska's free exercise clause was first interpreted in Frank v. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 2:11 pm by Howard Knopf
However, it should be noted that that the Board’s “correctness” niche carved out by the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) pre-Vavilov wherein some issues arise both in tariff hearings and in infringement proceedings in the superior Courts may one day now be revisited as to whether this is still “good law”. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 10:40 am by Kevin
According to the superior court, “[t]he factual framework in this case is nebulous and punctuated by many contradictions. [read post]
25 Apr 2020, 7:37 am by Francis Pileggi
This post was prepared by Frank Reynolds, who has been following Delaware corporate law, and writing about it for various legal publications, for over 30 years. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 1:50 pm by Kevin LaCroix
David TopolPrivate investments funds (hedge funds, PE firms, venture capital funds and the like) are a significant part of the U.S. economy. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 1:21 pm by Unknown
Statements implying superiority where the differences in adverse reactions are not clinically meaningful would be misleading. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 12:55 pm by Gordon Ahl, William Ford
Frank Taylor, the former undersecretary of homeland security for intelligence and analysis; Richard Stengel, the former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs; Matt Blaze, a professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University; and Ginny Badanes, the director for strategic projects in Microsoft's defending democracy program. [read post]
14 Jul 2019, 8:58 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
More recently, Gregory Shill of the University of Iowa College of Law describes in The Atlantic how the law effectively compels the use of the automobile, repeating the 1977 SCOTUS reference in Wooley v. [read post]
(The law and ruling are explained in detail here.)In the Indiana case, the Court cited a precedent from 1983, Akron v. [read post]