Search for: "May v. Supreme Court of State of Colorado" Results 161 - 180 of 1,942
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Aug 2018, 3:25 am by David Kopel
They were also approved by the Colorado Territorial Supreme Court. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 11:21 am by David Kopel
The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 1:59 pm by Adam Gillette
  This storyline is often wrong.Consider the opinion the Supreme Court issued today in Wood v. [read post]
26 May 2023, 1:08 pm by Joel R. Brandes
  Both Petitioners acquiesced to S.J. staying in the United States with Respondents in May 2022, Petitioners did not request the return of S.J. until they filed this lawsuit. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 9:40 am by David M. McLain
  If and when the Colorado Supreme Court speaks to the issue, we may finally have some direction in Colorado regarding whether there is coverage for construction defects in Colorado. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 7:33 am
Similar bans are being passed by cities in Colorado and Pennsylvania, and the State of New York has had a moratorium on fracking since 2008. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 5:26 am by Steve Vladeck
The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the only remedy available to individuals in Nelson’s and Madden’s position was that provided by Colorado’s Exoneration Act – a statute that requires wrongly convicted defendants to show in a standalone civil action, by clear and convincing evidence, that they were actually innocent, in order to obtain “compensation” from the state. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 11:48 am by Whitney Roy and Alison Kleaver
 The Colorado Supreme Court held that both bans conflicted with state law in their operational effect and, thus, were preempted by state law. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 11:48 am by Whitney Roy
 The Colorado Supreme Court held that both bans conflicted with state law in their operational effect and, thus, were preempted by state law. [read post]
The US Supreme Court Thursday ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Austin city code’s distinction between on-premises signs, which may be digitized, and off-premises signs, which may not, was “facially content neutral” under the First Amendment. [read post]