Search for: "State v. First Judicial District Court" Results 2561 - 2580 of 9,084
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Nov 2019, 4:00 pm
UNITED STATED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CAMERON L. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 4:00 pm
UNITED STATED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CAMERON L. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 9:37 am by David Post
U.S., 395 U.S. 147 (1969); summary courts-martial, Middendorf v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 9:05 pm by Alana Bevan
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Zen Magnets v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 1:55 pm by David Cole
When the first ban was declared unconstitutional by the courts, Trump was forced to issue a revised ban. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 8:15 am by Benjamin Beaton and Barrett Block
The district court dismissed the claim, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 3:05 am by Florence Campbell Jones
The Supreme Court decision in Gilham v Ministry of Justice3 held that PIDA protections can apply to holders of public office even without any formal contracts of employment. [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 11:47 am by Amy Howe
The district court dismissed the family’s claims, and the full U.S. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 10:50 am by Phil Dixon
The defendant was on state post-release supervision in the Eastern District of North Carolina for a sex offense conviction. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 3:22 pm by Giles Peaker
The Magistrates had refused to state a case for the consideration of the High Court. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 5:59 am by Jonathan Shaub
The era of compromise and accommodation between branches—and the lack of judicial intervention—may be coming to an end. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 12:47 pm by Ilya Somin
But California's position was greatly strengthened by the Supreme Court's May 2018 ruling in Murphy v. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 10:00 am by Howard M. Wasserman
The district court denied the motion as to certain claims, but the U.S. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 3:34 am by Ben
Now the Ninth Circuit has said that the question of assessing whether Pandora still faces liabilities for past non-payment of royalties in the context of the MMA is matter for the district court that first considered the original lawsuit. [read post]