Search for: "Petit v. Minnesota"
Results 61 - 80
of 570
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Apr 2021, 1:31 pm
In the 2018 case Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 9:44 am
State v. [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 8:46 am
., v. [read post]
24 Apr 2021, 3:41 pm
Last week, EFF, ACLU, and ACLU of Minnesota filed an amicus brief in State v. [read post]
9 Apr 2021, 3:50 pm
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Taxation; Treaty Obligations) Petition for certiorari was denied in one case on 4/5/21:Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. [read post]
4 Apr 2021, 8:49 am
Minnesota, 2021)[Germany] Necessary Expenses] [not clearly inappropriate] [Reasonable attorneys fees and transportation costs awarded]Sanchez Mena v Gomez Paz, 2021 WL 633586 (D. [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 8:42 am
The court grouped three petitions together, including ours in Baxter v. [read post]
11 Mar 2021, 2:33 pm
More recently, the Supreme Court decided the case of Presley v. [read post]
5 Mar 2021, 8:15 am
The petition in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 1:08 am
To watch a video of Attorney Lindsey Meuser Rowland’s oral argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court in Hawley v. [read post]
19 Feb 2021, 11:04 am
" Lowell v. [read post]
14 Jan 2021, 4:56 pm
In 2010, the ACLU of Illinois petitioned the U.S. [read post]
10 Jan 2021, 2:34 pm
Minnesota, 2020) Filed 08/25/2020[Germany] [Petition granted][Habitual residence][None of the 4 defenses were established]Gallegos, v Soto, 2020 WL 2086554 (U.S. [read post]
5 Jan 2021, 5:58 am
The issue in Hawley v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 11:52 am
The case is Catlett v. [read post]
6 Dec 2020, 6:10 am
Minnesota In Kistner v. [read post]
15 Nov 2020, 8:05 am
First, briefs are due to the Supreme Court by November 16 in the FCC v. [read post]
31 Oct 2020, 9:27 pm
Minnesota: In Carson v. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 12:30 pm
Minnesota law provides that only those absentee ballots received by election day may be counted. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 10:38 am
Finally, on Oct. 23, in response to a petition filed by the Boockvar seeking declaratory relief, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held unanimously that “county boards of elections are prohibited from rejecting absentee or mail-in ballots based on signature comparison conducted by county election officials or employees, or as the result of third-party challenges based on signature analysis and comparisons. [read post]
