Search for: "McConnell v State"
Results 301 - 320
of 828
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Mar 2019, 5:24 pm
” United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 7:29 am
, Shelby County v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 4:14 am
Claiborne Hardware Co. or Rumsfeld v. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 9:00 am
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even used a hemp pen for his signature. [read post]
6 Mar 2019, 7:18 am
Fed’n of State, Cnty., & Mun. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 9:49 am
Engel v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 9:05 am
My own view is that both the Lemon v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
”[72] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, however, did not agree that an expression stated in the positive (i.e., a “significant contributing cause”) meant the same thing as one stated in the negative (i.e., “not a trivial cause”). [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
Because Democrats have passed laws in some states to protect the status quo, should the Supreme Court—freshly packed by Republicans with extreme ideologues—turn the question of abortion rights back to the states by overturning Roe v. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 10:55 am
After INS v. [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
To state the obvious, no emergency exists. [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 9:51 am
Nixon, United States v. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 3:03 am
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in Folkens v Wyland. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 6:59 pm
In the 1871 case of United States v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 9:02 pm
There is an abundant historical record supporting the conclusion that the United States Constitution was promoted by a core group of political leaders in order to strengthen the national government, and that the Constitution was understood by the people during the ratification debate to do just that. [read post]
15 Dec 2018, 11:05 am
As of today, a federal judge and the President of the United States support the result in Texas v. [read post]
12 Dec 2018, 12:13 pm
Separation of church and state — rightly understood — is vital. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 11:37 pm
McConnell v Commissioner, TC Memo. 1979-247. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 11:11 am
Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 4:32 am
A contract violating Section 4 78 is illegal “and under our settled rules [New York courts] refuse to aid in it but leave the parties where they are” (Spivak, 16 NY2d at 168, citing McConnell v Commonwealth Pictures Corp., 7 NY2d 465 [1960]; see also El Gamayel v Seaman, 72 NY2d 701, 705 [1988] [“As a matter of public policy, a contract to provide services in violation of [Judiciary Law§ 478] is unenforceable in our state… [read post]
