Search for: "Larsen v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 214
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Nov 2023, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
” The complaint alleges Sun made threats against officials with the city, interfered with a lawful court order, violated state custodial interference laws, and engaged in disorderly conduct. [read post]
29 Sep 2023, 5:53 am by Eugene Volokh
It also aligns with the Legislature's recent amendment of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 5:36 am by Guest Author
This paper is much narrower—Sunstein is really unpacking some of the conservative SCOTUS bloc’s internal debates about the MQD in Biden v. [read post]
14 Mar 2023, 2:05 pm by Adam S. Forman and Angel A. Perez
 Codifying the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Rouch World v MI Department of Civil Rights, which held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes a violation of ELCRA as currently written, the amendment makes Michigan the 24th state to incorporate provisions for safeguarding individuals based on sexual orientation. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 6:43 am by Shams Hirji
Then there’s Judge Larsen, who has used the parenthetical in only one published concurrence, United States v. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 6:12 am by Dan Bressler
” [See the complete article for more detail on]: “The first was Larsen v Larsen (2022 NY Slip Op 32415(U) [Sup Ct, Kings County July 18, 2022]“ “Less than a month after Larsen, the Delaware Supreme Court, in Griffith v Stein (___A3d ___ [Del Aug. 16, 2022]“ “Trump’s Lawyers May Become Witnesses or Targets in Documents Investigation” — “Two lawyers for former President Donald J. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 4:40 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The Larsen Decision The first was Larsen v Larsen (2022 NY Slip Op 32415(U) [Sup Ct, Kings County July 18, 2022]), in which Brooklyn Commercial Division Justice Leon Ruchelsman considered and rejected a pre-answer dismissal challenge to a shareholder derivative suit based upon the suing minority shareholder’s alleged conflict of interest. [read post]