Search for: "State v. Shepherd" Results 201 - 220 of 402
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2012, 3:53 pm
Hund went on to argue for the same interpretation of Jones v. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 7:45 pm by Milena Sterio
  However, as I have blogged before, the 9th Circuit recently found in Cetacean v. [read post]
25 Jun 2022, 1:38 pm
It is  hosted by Völkerrechtsblog and brilliantly co-organized by Justine Batura (Völkerrechtsblog), Anna Sophia Tiedeke (Völkerrechtsblog) and Michael Riegner (University of Erfurt; co-founder of the Völkerrechtsblog), who will feature as guest editor of the Symposium. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 8:04 am by Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe
Jackson Women’s Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
18 May 2007, 10:58 am
  My friends cut-and-paste allow a quick summary from the Eighth Circuit's official opinion page:062965P.pdf   05/18/2007  United States  v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 3:57 am by Russ Bensing
  Most Ohio courts, for example, follow the 6th District’s decision in State v. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 2:59 am
The WRBI has also used this shepherding technique with cougars, moose, big horn sheep, and wolves.Enter the government. [read post]
25 May 2011, 3:08 am by Adam Wagner
In Shepherd Masimba Kambadzi v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 23 the court held by a majority that a foreign national prisoner’s detention was unlawful for the periods in respect of which no review was carried out, contrary to Home Office policy, and that he does have a claim in tort for false imprisonment in respect of those periods. [read post]
23 May 2009, 7:20 am
Herzog (it is negligence per se to operate a vehicle on a state highway in violation of state safety statute requiring using lights). 3. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 2:19 pm
Shepherd) a law review article concluding that the whole United States tort system is unjustifiable, specifically because it doesn't deter effectively. [read post]
10 May 2024, 2:30 am by Brian Cordery (Bristows)
Applying the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Fish & Fish v Sea Shepherd UK[1], Meade J found the former went no further than “mere facilitation” and thus no joint liability, whereas the latter amounted to assisting customers pursuant to a common design by working a method which would have infringed EP 572. [read post]