Search for: "State v. So "
Results 1981 - 2000
of 117,845
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
[Orin Kerr] Byrd v. United States: The Supreme Court Takes a Broad View of Fourth Amendment Standing
15 May 2018, 4:12 am
So which is it, property? [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 7:42 am
State v. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 5:11 pm
So federal law defers to state law here. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 7:16 am
Even so, plaintiff in the case prevailed. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 12:41 pm
Rick cites Davis v. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 10:51 am
Almost immediately, the law was challenged in court, in a case called United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 10:51 am
Almost immediately, the law was challenged in court, in a case called United States v. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 5:00 am
To do so, the court employed the three-part test developed by the United States Supreme Court in Securities and Exchange Commission v. [read post]
27 Jan 2022, 4:20 am
In Maldonado v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 7:50 am
The State Court of Appeals says that is not necessary.The case is Margerum v. [read post]
14 May 2009, 2:40 pm
A unanimous three-judge panel ruled in Embry v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 8:28 am
The state trial court dismissed on the pleadings and California Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, both relying on Geier v. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 4:00 am
Ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court vacated the Trump administration’s rescission of DACA in 2020 when—by a 5-4 margin, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority—it decided Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
21 Dec 2008, 10:23 am
For example, the decision states that a district court does not have the power to suspend a sentence, citing United States v. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 4:11 pm
Specifically, the questions presented are: Whether the “substantial[ity]” and “federal-state balance” requirements of Grable are satisfied whenever a federal law standard is referenced to inform the standard of care in a state-law cause of action, so long as the parties dispute whether federal law embodies the asserted standard. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 11:33 am
So, do the facts back it up? [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 2:19 pm
The decision of the House of Lords in Limbuela (R (on the application of Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) UKHL 66, (2006) 1 AC 396) is quite clear on this point; as Lord Hope pointed out “The question whether, and if so in what circumstances, support should be given at the expense of the state to asylum seekers is, of course, an intensely political issue” And, he went on to say, engagement in this “political”… [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 12:48 pm
In Bartnicki v. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 4:54 am
*State v. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 7:49 am
Dissenting, Noonan derided the state supreme court's analysis as mechanical and fact-finding as unreasonable.US v. [read post]
