Search for: "James v. Davis"
Results 61 - 80
of 757
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Oct 2022, 8:21 am
The main problem with the first step in Mostyn J’s reasoning – even if he is right in law (which he may well be: certainly Sir James Munby, former President of the Family Division considers he is) – is that the Court of Appeal has decided otherwise in Clibbery v Allan, a judgment by which Mostyn J as a first instance judge is bound. [read post]
6 Oct 2022, 9:15 am
–Sedlik v. [read post]
23 Sep 2022, 4:00 am
Spending in election cycles by corporations and the ultrawealthy through so-called dark money groups has skyrocketed since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. [read post]
16 Sep 2022, 4:34 pm
GermanyDer Dritte Weg v. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 6:00 am
In State v. [read post]
21 Aug 2022, 12:35 am
And finally…II Per Julian Knowles J in Al-Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2022] EWHC 2199 (QB) at [195]: “There are shades of Mandy Rice-Davies in this explanation — ‘they would say that, wouldn’t they? [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 12:01 pm
McGovern (South Texas), Cassady V. [read post]
10 Aug 2022, 6:59 am
The post JAMES DAVIS v. [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 12:33 pm
Grier, Noah Swayne, and David Davis. [read post]
26 Jul 2022, 6:01 am
.''"] From Friday's decision by Judge James Boasberg in Kartte v. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 5:13 am
From Myers v. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 4:00 am
Davis, (Journal of Islamic Law [Harvard] (2022)).From SmartCILP:Christian Zendri, Book Review. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 2:26 pm
Davis & Nicholas R. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 3:54 am
Notably, the Davis v. [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 12:05 pm
See Davis ex rel. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 6:30 am
As James Madison declares in a powerful passage in Federalist 37, the Bible is in fact not transparent in its meanings. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 6:47 am
That is a super-timely question--see Whole Women's Health v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
[Editor’s Note: This post is based on a comment letter submitted to the U.S. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 10:32 am
The argument that Congress in 1872 had prospectively shielded Cawthorn from a Section 3 challenge lodged 150 years later—a tortured, ahistorical, purportedly textualist argument—had been advanced by Cawthorn’s lawyer, veteran Republican elections attorney James Bopp, Jr. [read post]
31 May 2022, 6:43 am
It may be that in this regard Clibbery v Allan is now a dead letter and that Lykiardopulo was wrongly decided. [read post]
