Search for: "State v. Hughes"
Results 241 - 260
of 1,943
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2021, 4:33 pm
That exercise is primarily a function of national courts, in respect of which states enjoy a margin of appreciation, subject to the supervision of the Strasbourg Court [96] – [97]. [read post]
24 Nov 2015, 7:05 am
"In 1941, the year Hughes left the court, Chief Justice Roberts said, 'you had two senators on the court, a representative, three former attorneys general.' The court that decided Brown v. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court—in Hughes v. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 12:45 am
In this post, Kenny Henderson, David Bridge, Jessica Foley and Devina Shah, who all work within the litigation and arbitration team at CMS, comment on the decision handed down last week by the UK Supreme Court in the matter Mastercard Incorporated and others v Walter Hugh Merricks CBE [2020] UKSC 51, which has significant implications for the UK competition law collective proceedings (or class actions) regime. [read post]
1 Jun 2019, 1:01 am
Near v. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 1:56 am
In R v May, R v Jennings, R v Green the House of Lords directed courts to consider the three questions which arise in making a confiscation order separately, even if the result was a low order. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 12:16 am
The case was TXI v. [read post]
3 Jan 2008, 6:19 am
The New Jersey Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the matter of State v. [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 9:40 am
United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). [read post]
20 Sep 2017, 8:23 am
As a consequence scholars knew very little about the Court’s internal deliberations in the landmark cases of its 1936 October Term.This article, which is based upon a review of all of the surviving docket books from that Term, considers what those sources can teach us about the cases comprising what some have called the “switch-in-time”: West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish, which upheld Washington State’s minimum wage law for women and overruled Adkins v… [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 10:16 am
This article, which is based upon a review of all of the surviving docket books from that Term, considers what those sources can teach us about the cases comprising what some have called the “switch-in-time”: West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish, which upheld Washington State’s minimum wage law for women and overruled Adkins v Children’s Hospital; the Labor Board Cases, which upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act; and the Social… [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 10:16 am
This article, which is based upon a review of all of the surviving docket books from that Term, considers what those sources can teach us about the cases comprising what some have called the “switch-in-time”: West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish, which upheld Washington State’s minimum wage law for women and overruled Adkins v Children’s Hospital; the Labor Board Cases, which upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act; and the Social… [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 8:51 am
In Marks v. [read post]
8 May 2008, 8:34 pm
State, 187 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 9:30 pm
Jones, Hughes v. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 9:09 am
The Second Circuit rejected a broad reading of Hugh v. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 2:32 pm
This morning the Court issued a five-to-three opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 1:13 am
It was a misdirection to say one needed to broadly compensate each individual. 1209: Ms Demetriou QC says it is clear that the Tribunal saw there as being a governing principle that individual claimants must be restored to position they would have been in but for the infringement, which is wrong as a matter of statutory construction. 1202: Ms Demetriou QC states that the compensatory principle is not irrelevant at distribution stage, but it is not a statutory requirement. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 1:05 am
Lord Hughes states that the acid test should be whether the application is in substance (impermissibly) to vary or alter the final order or whether it is (permissibly) to support it by working out how it should be carried into effect [54]. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 4:24 pm
The court found that the comments concerning the drug use of Ms Rubio’s boyfriend, R.B., had related solely to the state of their relationship and had not alleged that Ms Rubio had incited him directly to take drugs. [read post]
