Search for: "State v. Iowa Dist. Court"
Results 61 - 80
of 229
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Apr 2014, 11:57 am
Supreme Court decided their case in Tinker v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 7:35 am
Almost two years after the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 11:21 am
Dist. [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 4:10 am
LEXIS 152643 (ND IA, Oct. 23, 2013), an Iowa federal district court permitted plaintiff who is civilly detained as a sexually violent predator to move ahead with his general claim that he has been denied religious materials and recognition of the religion of his choice.In Mack v. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 1:50 pm
States, supra); Ace Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Comment k could correspond to Led Zeppelin, and state of the art might be The Who.And it seems that, for each of these bands, there’s a song we really like that gets slighted (in our opinion) when it comes to air time on classic rock stations. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 5:00 am
Dist. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 7:43 am
Hughes v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 10:59 am
Iowa Mar. 13, 2013) Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 6:51 am
” The court in Long v. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 6:00 am
Dist. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 9:31 am
The court in Smith v. [read post]
3 Dec 2012, 4:19 am
The court declines to follow Jardines v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 11:17 am
Dist. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 8:11 am
Fifth Judicial Dist. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 4:53 am
Citing United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 8:41 am
On June 13, 2012, the California Supreme Court unanimously denied review in the case of California Society of Anesthesiologists v. [read post]
23 Jun 2012, 11:34 am
Iowa Fire Equip. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 5:24 am
This week, Cybercrime Review is featuring a series of posts that takes a look at how federal and state courts are applying the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
30 May 2012, 3:00 am
Co., 653 N.W.2d 323, 331 (Iowa 2002) (stating injury “must be related to the working environment or the conditions of employment”); Griffith v. [read post]
