Search for: "State v. Weight"
Results 1 - 20
of 8,742
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 May 2024, 6:51 am
In the 2012 United States Supreme Court case National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:50 pm
Applying the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Strickland v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:19 pm
Supreme Court case Allen v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:19 pm
Supreme Court case Allen v. [read post]
30 May 2024, 12:19 pm
Supreme Court case Allen v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 9:01 pm
Long settled and established practice may have great weight in interpreting constitutional provisions about the operation of government. [read post]
29 May 2024, 3:52 pm
For scholarly publications, Rule 10.7.1(d) adds a descriptive parenthetical note for citing cases where an enslaved person was involved, and provides examples like “Wall v. [read post]
28 May 2024, 9:01 pm
GmbH v. [read post]
23 May 2024, 7:07 pm
S. 438, 448 (2010); United States v. [read post]
23 May 2024, 4:12 am
Johnson v. [read post]
21 May 2024, 1:15 pm
In a recent case, a motorcyclist was fatally injured in an accident when his bike was struck by a car on a state highway. [read post]
20 May 2024, 1:37 pm
In United States v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 7:24 am
Warrants would also provide the focal point for political and legal mobilization in third states, including the United States, making it harder to sustain military aid to Israel. [read post]
18 May 2024, 7:41 am
Mular v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 2:02 pm
For example, in Italian Colors Rest. v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 12:29 pm
I am doubtful that Justice Barrett would have joined United States v. [read post]
16 May 2024, 9:19 am
See Weinberger v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 3:37 pm
Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. [read post]
12 May 2024, 3:00 pm
” Libya is not the sole state to intervene in the South Africa v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]