Search for: "State v. James S." Results 201 - 220 of 10,014
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Feb 2024, 8:57 am by John Mikhail
 That is the central reason why James Madison, seconded by James Wilson, first moved on June 1 that the Executive be vested with the power “to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for. [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 12:36 am by Orin S. Kerr
  In just the last few months, for example, opionions include People by James v. [read post]
17 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
James McReynolds was a traditional Southern Democrat who was suspicious of federal power and devoted to states’ rights and individual liberties for white men. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
Now on YouTube: the National Constitution Center’s panel on “the history of the African American fight for freedom during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods”  Edda Fields-Black and James Oakes were panelists. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
  At the state level, in Virginia, the same 1924 legislative session originated both the eugenical sterizilization act at issue in Buck v. [read post]
Authors: Ray Giblett, James Morris, Rajaee Rouhani, Stephen Lee, Jeremy Moller, Charles Nugent-Young, Merren Taylor, Timothy Chan, Joshua Kan, Dylan Sault and Steven Li  Welcome to our first wrap up of the year! [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 7:39 pm by Mark Graber
 The specter of Dunning School history haunted oral argument in Anderson v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 1:02 am by INFORRM
On 14 February 2024 there will be a strike out/summary judgment application in the case of Chowdhury-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department KB-2023-003368. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 7:41 am by Unreported Opinions
Criminal law — Sufficiency of evidence — Term of probation Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of attempted theft of a cell phone, James Earl Fells, appellant, presents for our review two issues … Read the opinion The post JAMES EARL FELLS v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 4:54 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The doctrine applies “where the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the party who is being estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action” (Simmons v Trans Express Inc., 37 NY3d 107, 112 [2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Molnar v JRL S. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
Nothing in the post-2013 Act case law suggests that the section 3(3) requirement is any less permissive (see, for example, the first instance decision in Butt v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB), and particularly Mr Justice Nicol’s comments at [39]. [read post]