Search for: "Head v. State"
Results 221 - 240
of 14,806
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2024, 12:44 pm
State of New York et al v. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am
Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 3:44 pm
According to the USSC: 9% had little or no prior criminal history (Criminal History Category I); 7% were CHC II; 8% were CHC III; 2% were CHC IV; 5% were CHC V; 9% were CHC VI. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 11:44 am
The plaintiff struck her head on a pole in the bus. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 11:12 pm
During oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 1:07 am
In Guerra v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 5:00 pm
Putin ("President Vladimir V. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 12:46 pm
Kirtz and Murray v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 11:37 am
[This is the second installment in a series about the oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 9:20 am
During oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 3:00 am
See State v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm
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]
8 Feb 2024, 2:41 pm
Term Limits v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm
The case is the most significant elections matter the justices have been forced to confront since the Bush v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 7:53 am
State v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 4:05 am
In Landor v. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 3:59 am
Joe Benarroch, head of business operations at X, stated: “As a sign of X Corp. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:58 pm
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 8:40 am
Pinto v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 7:20 am
For example, Lash, in discussing the question of ratifiers' views on "whether Section Three applied to future insurrections," states (at 45) that "[v]ery few ratifiers specifically addressed" the question, but those who did "came to different conclusions" on this point. [read post]
