Search results for: "2" (3479 results)
CODE § 72-1506(4) (2019). 54. Legis. Res. 102, 102d Leg., 1st Sess. (2011); Legis. Res. 7, 97th Leg., 1st Sess. (2001). 55. CAL. CONST. art. XXI, § 2
Complaint, supra note 25, ¶¶ 2, 26. 28. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)-(ii), (b)(1)(iv), (d) (2016) (prohibiting “[d]eny[ing] a qualified individual with
such cases, /20-moonshot-projects-by-google-turned-alphabet-2016-2/#google-fiber-1 [http://perma .cc/E9RC-2GBH]. 32. Jensen and Meckling observed
with far greater scope and impact. 25. KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 532.300(2) (West 2021); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15A-2011(a), (c) (2012) (re- pealed 2013). A
BEDOYA 6/23/2006 1:34:11 PM 2112 Alvaro Bedoya The Unforeseen Effects of Georgia v. Ashcroft on the Latino Community abstract. In Georgia v. Ashcroft, the Supreme ...
2504 (2009). 2. Id. at 2516. 3. LAUGHLIN MCDONALD, AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE FIGHT FOR EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS (2010) [hereinafter MCDONALD, AMERICAN
press-office/2017/02/21/press -briefing-press-secretary-sean-spicer-2212017-13 [http://perma.cc/G89C-GJFF]. 2. Erica Meltzer, A video Shows ICE Agents
11. See 2 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-04-261SP, PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL APPRO- PRIATIONS LAW 3 (3d ed. 2004). 12. See SCOTT A. FRISCH, THE
DAILY OHIO STATESMAN, May 15, 1849, at 2. 109. See infra notes 212-224 and accompanying text. the yale law journal 121:1528 2012 1548
196, 1967 U.S.C.C.A.N. (81 Stat. 581) 633 (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 2c (2000)). The Supreme Court ruled in Wood v. Broom, 287 U.S. 1 (1932), that the