Search for: "State v. Words"
Results 2481 - 2500
of 36,211
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2014, 10:37 am
(And, yes, I realize that the use of the words "tiny" and "little" as applied to this industry is perhaps a slight misnomer.)For what it's worth, Judge Kozinski was on this panel as well. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 1:41 pm
US v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 4:57 pm
In particular, the Council referred to the obiter words of Lord Woolf MR in Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] QB 775: “if a public body is given a statutory responsibility which it is required to perform in the public interest, then, in the absence of an implication to the contrary in the statute, it has standing to apply to the court for an injunction to prevent interference with its performance of its public responsibilities and the courts should grant… [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 6:18 pm
In other words, partisan state judges read a ban against political gerrymanders into the penumbra of state law. [read post]
26 Jul 2014, 5:03 pm
This type of facial challenge, which is restricted to cases implicating the 1st Amendment, requires a court to assess the wording of the statute — without reference to the defendant’s conduct’ (People v. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 4:13 pm
The claimant stated that this did not happen. [read post]
23 May 2017, 6:30 am
Understanding Indian title as an estate in land that is every bit as powerful as the fee simple—as equally "sacred" in the words of the Supreme Court—is the message we should be sending to new lawyers, not the opposite. [read post]
27 Oct 2008, 9:01 pm
Bowen v. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 7:29 am
”) State v. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 9:01 pm
Background on the King v. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 2:08 pm
United States (Federal Tort Claims Act)The Shawnee Tribe v. [read post]
15 Mar 2014, 5:04 pm
INTRODUCTION The Utah Supreme Court decided Baird v. [read post]
16 Mar 2014, 12:04 am
INTRODUCTION The Utah Supreme Court decided Baird v. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
The Court recognized that the words “accept and use” do not necessarily carry such a broad meaning – they could mean only that the state was required to consider the federal form – but based on the context and the other provisions in the NVRA, the Court concluded that the requirement to “accept and use” the federal form has the stronger effect of requiring states to treat the federal form as sufficient. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 2:03 pm
First, Howlett v. [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:00 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2008, 8:43 pm
This fact motivated a district judge in United States v. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 11:37 am
Wal-Mart v. [read post]
7 Oct 2008, 2:01 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 3:36 pm
The 9th does state that these cases "show again why the ten most terrifying words in the English language may be, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'" (9912). [read post]
