Search for: "CONNELL V US"
Results 201 - 220
of 293
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Aug 2013, 8:00 am
Help us, please. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 3:15 pm
Connell, Deceased, Appellant, v. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 8:27 am
The case is Banks v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 9:31 am
In that ruling, Grutter v. [read post]
10 Jan 2017, 7:16 am
Monday’s argument in Lewis v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 1:18 pm
Hart v. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 4:21 pm
Connell v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 5:05 pm
Connells Prairie Cmty. [read post]
13 Apr 2013, 5:00 am
In other detention-related news, Alan updated us on the goings-on in the Second Circuit appeal of Hedges v. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 6:00 am
For lawyers, understanding verbal fillers provides a lesson in how to approach these pesky utterances, which for most of us have come with a lifetime of stern admonishments to avoid using them at all costs. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 12:30 am
Although the legal premise for such cases arose in the 1980s (see, for example State (O’Connell) v Fawsitt [1986] I.R. 362 and Murphy v DPP [1989] I.L.R.M. 71) real interest in the “missing evidence” concept as a method to seek to force the prohibition of an impending trial did not gather pace until the early 2000s. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 11:45 am
” See O’Connell v. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 11:45 am
” See O’Connell v. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 2:17 pm
Contact us at 703-402-2723 or 1-800-579-9864. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
O’Connell v. [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 7:53 am
B185673 "In case where defendant's vehicle was seized, and forfeiture proceedings initiated after he was arrested for soliciting prostitution, judgment and award of attorney's fees for defendant against city is affirmed as the ordinance under which the vehicle was forfeited was preempted by state law, and the attorney's fees award was proper based on O'Connell v. [read post]
5 May 2008, 3:05 am
Deborah Pearlstein responded and invited me to weigh in; my contribution is cross-posted here.)Deborah, you're on to something here when you ask whether the words "necessary" and "appropriate" -- which qualify "use of force" in Congress' Authorization to Use Military Force of September 18, 2001 -- ought not to be examined more fully.In Hamdan v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 7:48 am
A few weeks ago, a Seventh Circuit en banc panel held oral arguments in Vance v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 9:41 am
HANEY v. [read post]
15 Nov 2017, 5:34 am
Gore v. [read post]
