Search for: "BAKER v. STATE"
Results 2081 - 2100
of 3,485
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2012, 2:45 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Nouri & Anor, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 1379 (27 June 2012) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) R & Ors (Minors), R (on the application of) v The Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service [2012] EWCA Civ 853 (29 June 2012) Loader, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 869 (29 June 2012) High Court (Chancery Division) Gaydamak v Leviev… [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 5:39 am
The Supreme Court Thursday is expected to issue arguably the most anticipated decision since 2000's Bush v. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 9:42 pm
But "Ohio State" has echoes of one of the key cases cited in support of the mandate: the 1942 decision in Wickard v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 10:39 am
Baker III et al., Football v. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 7:39 am
On Friday, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in Hobbs v. [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 12:35 pm
” The purpose of the First Amendment, Wu writes, is “to protect actual humans against the evil of state censorship. [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 6:29 am
Baker, 2012 U.S. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 1:45 pm
Anderson v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 3:17 am
” (per Scott Baker L.J. in Sowden v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 2:44 am
” In relation to the law, Peter Jackson J had the benefit of Baker J’s comprehensive survey of the law relating to withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment in W v M and others [2011] EWHC 2443 (COP). [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 2:00 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 2:38 pm
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at p. 233; Baker v. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 10:59 am
Supreme Court’s 1972 summary affirmance in Baker v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 8:41 pm
Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008). [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 9:54 am
The Supreme Court decision earlier this week in Michael Baker v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 7:15 am
United States. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 3:00 am
Although a demand for retroactivity of wages and benefits is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Act and arbitrable under §204.9(g) of the Act, the Association asserted that the joint employer’s proposal was prohibited based upon the rationale in the Appellate Division, Third Department’s decision in Baker v Board of Education, Hoosick Falls Central School District, 3 AD3d 678, 37 PERB ¶7502 (3d Dept 2004). [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 6:34 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 4:27 pm
J.M.B., 650 A.2d 757 (N.J. 1994); State v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 8:33 am
In Michael Baker v. [read post]
