That news followed the release of dueling assessments on the college's condition in the months before an expected
ruling in State Supreme Court on the legality of having tuition at the 155 - year - old institution.
Dixon filed suit, challenging the board's
ruling in state Supreme Court based on a 2003 decision involving a legislative race in Colonie, and arguing he had recently been drawn out of the 4th: «Because the line was pushed to the middle of my road.
Not exact matches
The
state's environment minister has picked three legal professionals to conduct a review into the Environmental Protection Authority,
in the wake of the
Supreme Court's
ruling on the Roe 8 highway project last month.
The U.S.
Supreme Court's decision at the beginning of 2015 to accept the case
in which a court majority
ruled in June that
state gay marriage bans are unconstitutional was a likely trigger, Warbelow said.
A Circuit Court of Appeals
in San Francisco has
ruled that a challenge to the
state's 145 - year - old ban on prostitution may proceed, saying a 2003
Supreme Court
ruling opened the door for closer scrutiny of the law.
In June 2016, the Supreme Court split 4 - 4 in the case, leaving in place an appeals court ruling in favor of the states
In June 2016, the
Supreme Court split 4 - 4
in the case, leaving in place an appeals court ruling in favor of the states
in the case, leaving
in place an appeals court ruling in favor of the states
in place an appeals court
ruling in favor of the states
in favor of the
states..
As the
Supreme Court gets ready
in June to
rule on the issue for the second time
in two years, conservative
states have rushed to enact so - called Religious Freedom Reformation Act (RFRA) laws that would allow businesses to object on religious grounds to serving LGBT people and same - sex couples.
Florida's
state Supreme Court
ruled that a defendant
in a capital case doesn't have the right to have a jury determine that.
In papers being filed with the state Supreme Court in Manhattan, the restaurant group likened the rule to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's failed effort to curb sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (473 milliliters
In papers being filed with the
state Supreme Court
in Manhattan, the restaurant group likened the rule to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's failed effort to curb sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (473 milliliters
in Manhattan, the restaurant group likened the
rule to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's failed effort to curb sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces (473 milliliters).
A 1992
Supreme Court
ruling decreed that online vendors can sell goods without collecting sales tax, as long as they don't have a physical location
in a given
state.
Same sex marriage is now legal
in 36
states, and the
Supreme Court will issue a final
ruling on whether such couples have a federal right to marry
in June.
In 1997, the
Supreme Court
ruled that RFRA only applied to the federal government, not the
states.
After the
Supreme Court
in 1911 struck down the form of resale price maintenance enabled by fair trade laws, 59 Congress
in 1937 carved out an exception for
state fair trade laws through the Miller - Tydings Act.60 When the
Supreme Court
in 1951
ruled that producers could enforce minimum prices only against those retailers that had signed contracts agreeing to do so, 61 Congress responded with a law making minimum prices enforceable against nonsigners too.62
Scalia, who previously served as DOL's chief legal officer and is the son of the late
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, agreed,
stating that the DOL
rule's impact «is nationwide, but it's very great
in Texas.
Also March 20, 2018: New York
state Judge Jennifer Schecter
rules against Trump's lawyers» motion to dismiss the defamation case by Summer Zervos, citing the
Supreme Court's
ruling in Clinton v. Jones that presidents are not immune from civil suits.
Just 16
states and the District of Columbia have set up their own health insurance marketplaces, which left millions of residents
in the 34
states that rely on exchanges run by the federal government vulnerable to the
Supreme Court's
ruling.
Zervos scored a victory recently when a New York
Supreme Court judge
ruled that her suit could go forward, rejecting the Trump team's argument that a sitting president can't be sued
in state court.
That's how I read the
Supreme Court's decision not to hear cases
in which lower courts
ruled that marriage laws
in various
states that recognize unions only of a man and a woman are unconstitutional.
in 1937 the
supreme court of the united
states ruled it is consti tutional — «to spend for the general welfare» — reference helvering v. davis.
Pretty strong language, but no stronger than the metaphor Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation used,
in an op - ed article
in The Washington Times, to «describe a bill designed to prevent corporations from rechartering abroad for tax purposes: Mitchell described this legislation as the «Dred Scott tax bill,» referring to the infamous 1857
Supreme Court
ruling that required free
states to return escaped slaves.
Examples abound, but here are two: the Oriental Exclusion Act (1924), which prohibited most immigration from Asia, including foreign - born wives and the children of American citizens of Chinese ancestry; and United
States vs. Bhaghat Singh Thind (1923),
in which the
Supreme Court
ruled that Indians from the Asian subcontinent can not become US citizens.
In the United
States, the Louisiana
state Supreme Court
ruled last year that
state law does not require a priest to notify authorities after hearing evidence of child abuse from a child making a confession.
This happened, for example, when the
Supreme Court of the United
States,
in a
ruling that helped to precipitate the Civil War, held
in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were noncitizens» and, for all practical purposes, nonpersons» possessed of no rights that white people must respect.
Further, it was built into actual political institutions
in later Old Testament times; the
rule of the high priests represented a complete triumph of the claim that church is
supreme above
state.
Just now, by a vote of five to four the
Supreme Court of the United
States ruled that same - sex couples may now marry in all 50 states, striking down the bans of states who have attempted
States ruled that same - sex couples may now marry
in all 50
states, striking down the bans of states who have attempted
states, striking down the bans of
states who have attempted
states who have attempted do so.
The
Supreme Court gave a boost to their conviction that secularism is a genuine competing faith
in the
ruling in the 1961 Torcaso case,
in which «Secular Humanism» was identified as a religion, and
in Justice Potter Stewart's dissent
in the 1963 Schempp case, which referred to a refusal to permit religious exercises
in schools as not «the realization of
state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism.»
In last week's Supreme Court ruling (King v. Burwell), the majority (6 — 3) ruled that the federally run health insurance exchanges in 36 states can receive taxpayer subsidies through the Affordable Care Act and qualified health plan
In last week's
Supreme Court
ruling (King v. Burwell), the majority (6 — 3)
ruled that the federally run health insurance exchanges
in 36 states can receive taxpayer subsidies through the Affordable Care Act and qualified health plan
in 36
states can receive taxpayer subsidies through the Affordable Care Act and qualified health plans.
Many social conservatives are rightly disappointed and dismayed by the
Supreme Court's
ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which effectively legalized same sex marriage
in all 50
states.
The decision on Friday will open marriage legally
in the remaining fourteen
states, and will give new legal protection for those who got married under court
rulings that actually could not be considered truly final until the
Supreme Court itself had decided the constitutional question.
In 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, in a historical decision, that separate but equal facilities in education was not constitutiona
In 1954, the
Supreme Court of the United
States ruled,
in a historical decision, that separate but equal facilities in education was not constitutiona
in a historical decision, that separate but equal facilities
in education was not constitutiona
in education was not constitutional.
One of the most powerful of them, Pat Robertson, now
in the midst of an as - yet - undeclared presidential campaign, has equated church -
state separationists with communists and decries the «unelected tyrants» of the
Supreme Court, encouraging defiance of its
rulings.
When the soldier refused, citing a
Supreme Court
ruling that
states there was no requirement to pray
in public ceremonies, the officer then took the matter to the platoon sergeant, who also told the soldier to bow their head for uniformity purposes, according to Patrick Jones, a Ft. Jackson Public Affairs Officer.
However,
in 2010, the United
States Supreme Court
ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that a public college may enforce an «all comers» policy on a religious group without violating the First Amendment if it applied the policy universally to all groups.
There is another point of vulnerability: the 1983
Supreme Court
ruling in Bob Jones University v. United
States.
Guttmacher's analysis comes as Time magazine reports
in its cover story this week that pro-life supporters have been winning the battle against abortion since the United
States Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade
ruling 40 years ago.
(Note: This post has been updated to clarify that Medi - Share serves 50,000 people
in 49
states, members commit to not abuse alcohol, and operational changes were made prior to the
state Supreme Court
ruling.)
The Kentucky
Supreme Court
ruled in 2010 that Medi - Share, which currently serves nearly 50,000 people
in 49
states, offers a «shifting of risk» and thus shouldn't be exempt from
state insurance regulations.
In 1997, the United
States Supreme Court
ruled 9 - 0 that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide.
There has always been some tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise protections of the First Amendment, but the
Supreme Court, when considering a similar challenge to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
in 2005 — wherein the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had
ruled that granting protections to religious prisoners amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause —
ruled that alleviating a
state - imposed substantial burden on religious practice did not violate the Establishment Clause.
There, Governor Orville Faubus and other
state officials maintained that they were not bound by the
Supreme Court's
ruling in Brown.
Does the
Supreme Court's
ruling striking down
state prohibitions of abortion
in the 1973 cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton belong on the plus side of the Court's ledger with Brown v. Board or on the minus side with Dred Scott?
This happened, for example, when the
Supreme Court of the United
States,
in a
ruling that helped to precipitate the Civil War, held
in Dred Scott v. Sandford that blacks were noncitizens — and, for all practical purposes, nonpersons — possessed of no rights that white people must respect.
Interfaith curricula have been developed
in a number of
states since the
Supreme Court's
ruling 20 years ago.
With the recent
Supreme Court
ruling in the case of Allegheny County v. ACLU, I believe a new and exciting chapter
in the church -
state debate may be evolving around Jewish attempts
in Pittsburgh and other places to legitimate the display of Jewish religious symbols
in the public square.
It is my hope, moreover, that this argument may be reflected
in a continuing shift away from the strict separationist ideal that has for so long guided (and often misguided)
Supreme Court
rulings on church -
state issues.
To cite one of too many possible examples, a Jewish organization, the aggressively secularist American Jewish Congress, welcomed the
Supreme Court
ruling upholding a
state ban on the posting of the Ten Commandments
in public high schools.
The Court of Appeals for this Circuit
in the Gaidry case took note of these two cases, but held them not reconcilable with the later
ruling of the United
States Supreme Court
in Baglin v. Cusenier, 221 U. S. 680 [1 T. M. Rep. 147], wherein it was held that the fact that the primary meaning of the word «Chartreuse» was geographical did not prevent the acquisition of the exclusive right to its use as the designation of a liqueur made by the monks of the Monastery of La Grande Chartreuse.
In his
ruling, N.Y.
Supreme Court justice Manuel Mendez wrote, «New York
State penal law does not refer to «wagering» or «betting,» rather it
states that a person, «risks something of value.
When the U.S.
Supreme Court
ruled last year that same - sex couples could marry no matter which
state they lived
in, many believed it would open the door to polyamorous marriage — marriage among three or more people.
We are happy to report
in response to a lawsuit filed against the Commonwealth's regulatory use of priority habitat screening to protect endangered species, the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court has
ruled unanimously to affirm the
state's authority under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA).