Search for: "State v. Purvis" Results 1 - 20 of 43
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Aug 2023, 3:30 am by Dara E. Purvis
Purvis It can be difficult to imagine today, but in 2015 when Obergefell v. [read post]
10 May 2022, 5:55 pm by Riana Pfefferkorn
With the Supreme Court poised to rip away a constitutional right that’s been the law of the land for nearly half a century by overturning Roe v. [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 11:32 am by Eleonora Rosati
The end result of that litigation was that both parties agreed there was a contract between them and that it was governed by the law of the state of Pennsylvania (where it had been litigated). [read post]
8 Jun 2021, 10:47 am by Jon Sands
  A divided panel said that United States v. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 6:15 pm by jkim
The FLT came to national attention in the case of Purvi Patel. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 4:49 pm by INFORRM
The extent to which the state provides information and guidance to members of the public may be relevant here: the clearer the information from the state, the lower might be the public interest in knowing the details about particular cases. [read post]
26 Aug 2017, 6:00 am by Cyrus Farivar
"Cell phone users have an expectation of privacy in their cell phone location in real time and that society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable," Judge Hamilton wrote, citing an important Supreme Court decision from 1967 known as United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 1:30 am by Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD
John's University School of LawKatherine Schostok, DePaul University College of LawAllison Winnike, University of Houston Law Center 5:00 – 7:00 PM Welcome Reception – Henson Atrium, Georgia State Law Friday, June 9, 20177:30 – 8:15 AM Registration & Breakfast – Henson Atrium, Georgia State Law 8:15 – 8:30 AM Opening Remarks – Ceremonial Courtroom, Georgia State LawWendy Hensel, Interim Dean and Professor of Law, Georgia… [read post]
4 Apr 2017, 8:29 am by Joy Waltemath
In rejecting the employee’s claim that she was regarded as disabled, the court noted that her injury was transitory and minor and, therefore, not an impairment under the ADA (Purvis v. [read post]