Search for: "State v. Link" Results 81 - 100 of 24,131
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2024, 8:09 am by Kurt Lash
Akhil Reed Amar (Yale) and Vikram David Amar (Illinois) in Trump v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm by Josh Blackman
  Second, the Amars expressly link the scope of Section 3's language to Article VI, which might put the President, who takes an Article II oath, beyond the scope of Section 3. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 9:01 am by Just Security
”  South Africa had argued that the imposition of such a requirement would follow the model the Court had used in the provisional measures phase of Ukraine v. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 6:32 am by Daniel J. Gilman
ICLE’s comments on the draft are here, and my posts here and here identify (with links) useful commentary from many others. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Justice Stevens's opinion in Chevron did not explicitly link the two propositions in this fashion. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 9:26 am by CrimProf BlogEditor
Issue summary is from ScotusBlog, which also links to papers: Glossip v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 5:50 am by Michael C. Dorf
Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 5:07 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
State of California (5th—F084367) Residential Employees Performing In-Home Supportive Services—Employment Relationship with State of California—Vicarious Liability—Court of Appeal, affirming trial court’s dismissal order, held that State of California (State) had no employment relationship (either as joint or special employer) with In-Home Supportive… Digests of WCAB Decisions Denied Judicial Review Innovative Work Comp… [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 4:38 am by Beatrice Yahia
Cameron added “we should not accept” Houthi claims that the attacks are linked to their support for Palestinians. [read post]
21 Jan 2024, 12:05 am by Frank Cranmer
Quick links Mateusz Wąsik, Strasbourg Observers: Przybyszewska and Others v. [read post]
19 Jan 2024, 9:16 am by CMS
The Court of Session further stated that it was an error to categorise ITEPA, s 471(3) “as a separate and distinct route to taxation” which is available even if it has been established that ITEPA, s 471(1) has no application (i.e. there is no direct causal link between the relevant employment and the option being made available). [read post]