Search results for: "2" (2803 results)
CONST. art. I, § 2; N.Y. CONST. art. I, § 11; and TEX. CONST. art. I, § 3. 208. Resnik, supra note 203, at 2133, 2135-36 (describing how after
116, 119 (June 5); id. at 175 (June 9); id. at 224, 236 (June 13); id. at 244 (June 15); id. at 292, 300 (June 18); 2 FARRAND’S REC- ORDS 29 (July 17
Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-25, Sec. 101, §251(b)(2)(B)-(C), 125 Stat. 240, 242-43 (providing cap adjustments for HCFAC and continuing disability
§ 2919.25(D) (LexisNexis 2009). BURKE_PRESS_V2WEB.DOC 4/27/2010 2:33:10 PM when family matters 1223 the victims’ preferences and even over
cancellation.” U.C.C. § 2-608 cmt. 1 (2003). Confusion remained nonetheless. See Welken v. Conley, 252 N.W.2d 311, 315 (N.D. 1977). This is due in part to
%20overlooked%20requirement%20for%20c /files/view%20complete%20article/fileattachment/bna feldman newman schumaker(2).pdf http://perma.cc/73JK-N4FJ. Even in
203. No. 016055, slip op. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 6, 2004) (on file with author). 204. See id., slip op. at 2. 205. See id., slip op. at 2-3. 206
at 11-13, Microsoft Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 2:16-cv-00538JLR (W.D. Wash. Sep. 23, 2016). × Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1), (4) (2012) (stating
& Bernard Grofman eds., forthcoming 2014). 22. Pildes, supra note 2, at 760. 23. See Issacharoff, Discrimination Model, supra note 2, at 121-23. 24
HUTCHINSONFINAL 2/11/2003 2:21 PM 983 Credos Dennis J. Hutchinson† When Byron White moved in the spring of 2001 from Washington, D.C., where