Search for: "STATE V. POWERS"
Results 2541 - 2560
of 41,383
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Aug 2023, 6:30 am
A separate bill would eliminate the authority of the SEC to regulate shareholder proposals in their entirety, mirroring the objective of an ongoing lawsuit intervention by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in National Center for Public Policy Research v. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 6:05 am
Both Germany and the United States have advocated the “hybrid” route, with U.S. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 4:00 am
Haywood v. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 3:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 12:15 am
” Following the guidance in Brown v. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 9:05 pm
In West Virginia v. [read post]
20 Aug 2023, 12:01 pm
From Van Loon v. [read post]
19 Aug 2023, 10:10 pm
Daimler, and now also Nokia v. [read post]
19 Aug 2023, 3:57 am
Sh. v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 1:29 pm
(Shout out to you, Bolling v. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 1:12 pm
The IWC’s power to erode employee protections, however, is less robust, and A.B. 102 makes explicit that the reconvened IWC “shall not include any standards that are less protective than existing state law. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 12:37 pm
United States is relevant. [read post]
18 Aug 2023, 3:43 am
This was the case in R v Rogers [2014] EWCA Crim 1680, where there was no act of money laundering in England but it was sufficient that the underlying fraud generating the criminal property took place in England and there were English victims. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 9:30 pm
This is significant in two broad sets of cases: those that rely on history to apply a constitutional rule (as lower courts are doing with the historical-analogical test prescribed by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 7:51 am
So far the bodies, which wield considerable power in Scottish civil society, have succeeded in their aim. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 7:18 am
For example, in Mortgage Now, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 6:37 am
Next, Ramos v. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 6:37 am
Next, Ramos v. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 5:01 am
Joseph's Hospital Health Center v. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 4:55 pm
Resolving the conflict Mostyn J had taken the view in EBK v DLO (above) at [101] that “if a defendant in proceedings governed by FPR Part 37 or COPR Part 21 is found to have committed a contempt then that defendant must be named in open court and in general terms the court must state what is the nature of the contempt of court and what punishment, if any, has been imposed. [read post]
