Search for: "State v. Self" Results 2301 - 2320 of 14,024
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2015, 2:25 am
 This is what she writes:Defamation v Freedom of Expression: The ECHR Grand Chamber Hands Down Judgment in Delfi v EstoniaOn 16 July 2015, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handed down its much-awaited judgment in Delfi AS v Estonia. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 8:45 pm by Staff
REDUCED TO MISDEMEANOR – Felony Criminal Damage, State v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 7:44 am by The Charge
Unless, of course, there is a valid waiver of the right to counsel in which case the defendant can self-represent. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 9:12 am by Charlene Richer
At trial, Ms Mitchell claimed that she had acted in self-defence, had been provoked and did not have the requisite intention for murder. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 4:36 am
V stating that the federal government will no longer guarantee a republican form of government to the states. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 1:50 pm by Bexis
Nov. 8, 2012), primarily concerning its fraudulent joinder holding – in accord with the “overwhelming weight of authority” in other states – that a hospital cannot be strictly liable for claimed defects in drugs and medical devices that are used in medical procedures within its walls. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 3:53 am by Edith Roberts
At SSRN, Bryan Lammon explains why United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 4:45 pm by Lawrence Solum
  Here is the abstract: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 8:15 am
  Twombly held that a complaint can't survive a motion to dismiss unless it states a "plausible" claim. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 1:43 pm by Drew York
  Now state governments are seeking to quarantine citizens to protect against the possibility of a health epidemic. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 10:08 am by Eugene Volokh
I'm not sure this would be exactly right in a case where the court actually enforces an arbitral order; I think there would be state action restricting speech, but likely constitutionally permissible state action because the parties had contractually waived their speech rights, see Cohen v. [read post]