Search for: "Tea v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 1,083
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jan 2013, 6:57 am
After all, the "State" in "State v. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 11:13 am
Today’s opinion in In re United States of America/United States v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 9:00 am
The Tea Partiers might join with Republicans on budget matters, but with Libertarians and Democrats on gay marriage. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 1:26 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 2:29 pm
State v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 12:53 pm
The states did not argue that the revisions to the Medicaid grant program violate the 4-factor test in S.D. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2014, 6:37 am
In EEOC v. [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm
State Bd. of Educ. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 8:00 am
United States (available here). [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 3:04 pm
Co. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 5:00 am
Whether Gentry remains good law or not may be gleaned from this opinion but it doesn’t appear likely it will be clearly stated. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 3:29 pm
A year later, the FDA proposed two disclaimers that stated, in part, “FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk” of breast cancer or prostate cancer. [read post]
10 Jan 2014, 8:00 am
The Court did announce an argument date for STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. [read post]
10 Jun 2015, 2:54 pm
The Court heard nine cases during the March session when Michigan v. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 6:02 am
Republicans—whether it’s Bush v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 7:42 am
His numbers are tumbling in the critical battleground states of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and New Hampshire – states he must win in 2012.” [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 5:31 am
Carr and Reynolds v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 7:07 am
Monday’s decision in United States v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 12:30 pm
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 5:12 am
The Ninth Circuit heard argument on the appeal in April, and while reading the tea leaves of oral argument is always a risky proposition, the panel seemed hostile to Cisco’s arguments in favor of affirmance Salim v. [read post]
