Search for: "Hodges v. United States" Results 541 - 560 of 654
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Mar 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Hodges, (Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 15-12). [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 9:29 am by Irma Abella
United States, 527 U.S. 373, 380-381 (1999) (interpreting 18 U.S.C. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 8:36 am by Lyle Denniston
Hodges and three other cases — The constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage and state refusals to recognize existing same-sex marriages. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 11:15 am by John Elwood
Hodges, 14-556 (Ohio), Tanco v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 3:41 am by Janet Kentridge, Matrix
(See paragraph 28, referring to Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] AC 800 (HL)). [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 7:52 am by John Elwood
Hodges, 14-556 (Ohio), Tanco v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 9:57 am by Maureen Johnston
Hodges 14-556Issue: (1) Whether Ohio’s constitutional and statutory bans on recognition of marriages of same-sex couples validly entered in other jurisdictions violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. [read post]
2 Jan 2015, 2:15 am by Carol Wilkinson
Sheriff Tierney followed Sherriff Principal Reid’s opinion in United Dominions Trust Ltd v Tylor 1980 SLT (Sh Ct) 28 and held that s 75(1) of the CAA entitled Mr Durkin to rescind both the sale contract and credit agreement. [read post]
18 Oct 2014, 6:54 am by Brad Kuhn
For those of you interested in hearing from eminent domain experts across the United States on hot topic condemnation issues, I hope you’ll join us at the ALI-CLE’s 32nd Annual Eminent domain and Land Valuation Litigation Program. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 8:07 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
As federal judge Charles Brieant once wrote, the statute is "utterly repugnant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 7:25 am by Amy Howe
United States, in which the Court held that land exchanged with or transferred to the owners of private property under an 1875 law once again became their property when the railroad that ran across the property has been abandoned. [read post]