Search for: "State v. Settle"
Results 2521 - 2540
of 15,654
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2010, 3:13 am
In a June 25, opinion in Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 2:49 am
State f/u/o Whiteman, 192 Md. 419; Wolfe v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 11:54 am
(See United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 8:47 am
Hellerstedt, the Justices simply denied review on Tuesday of two other cases by states seeking to defend similar laws: a Mississippi case, Currier v. [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 2:26 pm
Meyers of the Ontario Superior Court stated that:[8] …. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 4:53 am
I attended the oral argument in Sears v. [read post]
11 Oct 2012, 7:42 am
In United States v. [read post]
4 May 2022, 7:29 am
Dick Durbin (D., IL.) pressed him on whether Roe is “settled law,” Alito responded again by stating the obvious: Roe v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 4:34 pm
Srinivasan challenges Phillips’ third contention, suggesting that United States v. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 2:26 am
Lord Neuberger stated that the conclusion of the Court of Appeal in Ellis v Rowbotham [1900] 1 QB 740 that the 1870 Act did not apply to rent payable in advance, is correct. [read post]
30 Jun 2024, 11:01 am
The Supreme Court decision in Ohio et al. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 9:12 am
Supreme Court in Sosa v. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 2:12 pm
Co. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that it is well settled that "proceeding under article 78 is not the proper vehicle to test the constitutionality of legislative enactments" in contrast to a judicial challenge directed at the procedures followed by the legislature rather than the substance of the enactment, which "... is maintainable in an article 78 proceeding," citing Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 9:17 am
State v. [read post]
18 Sep 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that it is well settled that "proceeding under article 78 is not the proper vehicle to test the constitutionality of legislative enactments" in contrast to a judicial challenge directed at the procedures followed by the legislature rather than the substance of the enactment, which "... is maintainable in an article 78 proceeding," citing Matter of Save the Pine Bush v City of Albany, 70 NY2d 193. [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 8:14 am
The York Antwerp Rules state three clear principles, all of which must be met in order for the rule to be applied. [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 2:00 am
After mentioning a number of authorities, it stated that the test of dishonesty was that clearly explained by Lord Hoffman in Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37 at [10]: [emphasis added] Although a dishonest state of mind is a subjective mental state, the standard by which the law determines whether it is dishonest is objective. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 4:08 pm
ShareAfter several interruptions from protesters supporting abortion rights, the court settled into a relatively pedestrian argument Wednesday in Bittner v. [read post]
