Search for: "*king v. Jackson" Results 201 - 220 of 343
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 May 2019, 4:36 pm by INFORRM
Judgments The following reserved judgments after public hearings in media law cases are outstanding: Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 8:46 am
Mitchell, No. 06-516 Conviction for aggravated identity theft is reversed where defendant did not couple his use of the name "Marcus Jackson" a sufficient amount of correct, distinguishing information to identify a specific Marcus Jackson, as required by the statute. [read post]
14 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm by Austin Sarat
”This conception of clemency is continuous with a line of cases going back to the first United States Supreme Court case on clemency in 1833.That case, United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2016, 9:30 am by Guest Blogger
Gerard Magliocca, buoyed by the ACA surviving a second Supreme Court review in King v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 8:57 am by Peter Margulies
” As the Court has said repeatedly, most recently in 2015’s King v. [read post]
9 Feb 2018, 5:13 am by UKSC Blog
Professor Nick Barber, Professor Jeff King and Dr Tom Hickman reflect on their important post on the UK Constitutional Law Association blog, which Lord Pannick QC credits in his Foreword as being the origin of the Miller litigation. [read post]
4 Aug 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
” In fact, the question that Rodney King posed was not “can’t we get along? [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 6:15 pm by justinsilverman
Consider the following anecdote involving Justice Robert Jackson: [I]n his famous concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
15 May 2023, 1:53 am by INFORRM
On 10 May 2023, the Court of Appeal (Peter Jackson, Males and Arnold LJJ) heard an appeal in the case of Stoute v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 8:37 am by Will Baude
  In Britain, the maxim "the King can do no wrong" reflected that the sovereignty of the King was incompatible with his amenability to legal process. [read post]