Search for: "State v. Phillips" Results 1981 - 2000 of 2,874
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jul 2011, 9:44 am by Blog Editorial
Phillip Tillet v The Queen (Belize), heard 9 June 2011. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 3:12 pm by Oliver Gayner, Olswang
  Lords Phillips and Clarke felt they could, and that a broad and progressive interpretation should be applied to strip states of immunity for executory as well as adjudicatory proceedings. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 12:11 pm by Lyle Denniston
  Judge Phillips’ ruling is under review by the Ninth Circuit in the case of Log Cabin Republicans v. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 9:55 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
Phillip Tillet v The Queen (Belize), heard 9 June 2011. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 9:23 am by rbm3
Academic freedom -- United States ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND THE LAW: A COMPARATIVE STUDY / ERIC BARENDT Oxford; Portland, Or. : Hart Pub., 2010 K3755 .B37 2010 See Catalog Affirmative action programs -- Law and legislation -- United States AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW AND POLICY / WILLIAM M. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 11:49 am by rbm3
Academic freedom -- United States ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND THE LAW: A COMPARATIVE STUDY / ERIC BARENDT Oxford; Portland, Or. : Hart Pub., 2010 K3755 .B37 2010 See Catalog Affirmative action programs -- Law and legislation -- United States AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW AND POLICY / WILLIAM M. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 2:18 pm by Christine Dowling
  New Mexico Labs Post-Bullcoming:  New Mexico officials are brainstorming ways to conform to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bullcoming v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 4:38 am by cdw
” In two separate cases, Roy Phillip Ballard v. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 2:02 pm by Blog Editorial
Phillip Tillet v The Queen (Belize), heard 9 June 2011. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 11:50 am by WSLL
Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 4:00 am by Ted Folkman
Lord Phillips held that the term “relating to” had to be construed more broadly than the precedents suggested: There is no principle of international law under which state A is immune from proceedings brought in state B in order to enforce a judgment given against it by the courts of state C, where state A did not enjoy immunity in respect of the proceedings that gave rise to that judgment. [read post]