Search for: "Sweet v State" Results 1 - 20 of 784
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Nov 2018, 11:00 pm by Hull & Hull LLP
Earlier this year, we argued the appeal in Moore v Sweet before the Supreme Court of Canada. [read post]
23 Nov 2017, 2:15 pm by The Regulatory Review
Yet when it comes to state nutrition programs supported by federal funds, yams and sweet potatoes both count as vegetables, while white potatoes do not. [read post]
Here is a link to the written Transcript of the oral argument before the United States Supreme Court on March 4, 2015 in King v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 2:28 pm by Big Tent Democrat
My picks: Syracuse (-7) over Butler, West Virginia (-4) over Washington, Xavier (+5) over K-State, and in the ultimate of David v. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 6:15 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here: Appellants Opening Brief ACLU Alaska Amicus Brief AVCP and AFN Amicus Brief State Brief Appellants Reply Brief Victoria Sweet posted the Atlantic Monthly profile of this case here. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 5:30 am
But, the big wheels (of justice) keep on turning, sending Freebird back to sweet home Kansas state court. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 2:04 pm by Randall Hodgkinson
Sarah Sweet-McKinnon won an acquittal in State v. [read post]
29 May 2009, 8:37 am
Here is a Hutchinson News article reporting that Sarah Sweet-McKinnon won an acquittal in State v. [read post]
12 Sep 2008, 10:03 am
Sarah Sweet-McKinnon won an aquittal in State v. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 7:00 am by Randall Hodgkinson
Here is a Hutchinson News article reporting that Sarah Sweet-McKinnon won an acquittal in State v. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 8:08 am by Malecki Law Team
Although the whistleblower is a foreign resident and none of the termination actions occurred within the United States, SEC stated that the plaintiff provided “key original information” leading to a successful enforcement action by the SEC concerning U.S. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 6:40 am
CNW Group states, The suit claims that the Defendants conspired to inflate the price of their products by 5% or more at least three times during the Class Period, in violation of a variety of statutes including the Competition Act, and the various provincial Consumer Protection Acts. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 12:59 pm
CNW Group states, The suit claims that the Defendants conspired to inflate the price oftheir products by 5% or more at least three times during the Class Period, inviolation of a variety of statutes including the Competition Act, and thevarious provincial Consumer Protection Acts. [read post]