Search for: "Windsor v. United States"
Results 141 - 160
of 1,007
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jul 2013, 7:43 am
KJ Related articles Guest Blog Post: Scott Tishaw on United States v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 1:38 pm
United States, No. 10 CIV. 8435(BSJ), 2012 WL 2019716 (S.D. [read post]
23 Aug 2013, 11:03 am
Harcourt (University of Chicago - Department of Political Science) has posted The Collapse of the Harm Principle Redux: On Same-Sex Marriage, the Supreme Court's Opinion in United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 2:46 pm
In an important guidance document in the wake of United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 7:22 am
(Dale Carpenter) Tomorrow I’ll be discussing the Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 12:57 pm
United States case challenging the constitutionality of limiting the estate tax marital deduction to hererosexual couples. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 10:35 am
The United States v. [read post]
15 Feb 2014, 1:49 pm
Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 5:44 am
Perry and United States v. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 4:45 am
United States, related to the estate tax. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 3:25 pm
The court then turns to United States v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 9:47 am
According to the Supreme Court in United States v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 5:44 am
Coverage continues of the Court’s decisions in United States v. [read post]
2 Aug 2013, 4:48 am
United States, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. [read post]
30 Jun 2013, 6:58 am
United States (Docket No. 12-63) and Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 1:52 pm
Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 577–79 (2003), and United States v. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 12:58 pm
Refunds may be available as a result of the recent United States Supreme Court decision, United States v. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 10:18 am
Perry, and United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 7:34 am
United States (June 6, 2012)Appeals Court (2d Cir.)Docket: Windsor v. [read post]
20 Apr 2014, 5:28 am
" It also argued that because the cba used the terms spouse as well as significant other, those terms should be interpreted to be interchangeable.Arbitrator Sarah R Cole has issued an award, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
