Search for: "State v. Means"
Results 2501 - 2520
of 61,249
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2019, 7:53 pm
Last month, the SCOTUS ruled in Timbs v Indiana that a state's fine or forfeiture scheme may be excessive and thus unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
2 May 2015, 5:00 pm
Additional Resources: Morris v. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 8:28 am
In Wilkinson v. [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 7:00 am
Avon v. [read post]
5 Dec 2024, 4:57 am
He invoked Banco Nacional de Cuba v. [read post]
27 Jul 2022, 2:09 pm
“What this ends up meaning is that people who have relatively minor second offenses end up getting 20 years probation,” he said. *** Read more… [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day is Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 5:10 pm
I asked the UCLA Emmett Institute’s Distinguished Counsel Mary Nichols to share her thoughts after reading the decision in Held v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 8:55 pm
In Mallory v. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 12:10 pm
L. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 9:32 am
What Salinas v Texas Means to You and Me Say you’re stopped by the police. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 4:22 am
Sotelo v. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 9:31 pm
Boschetto v. [read post]
28 May 2019, 10:50 am
Mr Glen concludes his letter by stating: “In summary, whilst the amendments to the remuneration text in CRD V would change the UK’s approach, the impact on smaller firms is manageable. [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 6:23 pm
Div., A-5307-09T3, December 5, 2011: New Jersey is a notice-pleading state, meaning that only a short statement of the claim need be pleaded. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 12:56 pm
This week, the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Wheelock v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 6:32 am
The father appealed against that decision.Held: Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Pill said (at paragraph 7) that the primary issue was the meaning and effect of paragraph 16(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Child Support Act 1991, which states that a maintenance assessment will cease to have effect "on there no longer being any qualifying child with respect to whom it would have effect". [read post]
