Search for: "Strong v. State" Results 2581 - 2600 of 16,386
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jan 2023, 10:53 am by Anna Bower
Consistent with that rich history, there is a strong public interest in releasing the report as requested by the grand jurors. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 3:45 pm
In United States v. 480.00 Acres of Land, No. 07-13584 (Feb. 11, 2009), the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), held "in order for a fact finding body to ignore a regulation in calculating 'just compensation' for a given piece of property, the landowner must show that the primary purpose of the regulation was to depress the property value of land or that the ordinance was enacted with the specific… [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 10:15 pm by Will Baude
Chief Justice Roberts returned to the language again in his separate opinion in United States v. [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 2:24 pm by PaulKostro
Notwithstanding this State’s strong policy in favor of arbitration, an arbitration provision is only enforceable if it “constitutes a valid contract to arbitrate. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 6:11 am by Magdaleen Jooste
  On December 14, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 4:31 pm by Lowell Brown
Momentum is strong in the wake of the court’s June 2013 decisions in United States v. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 6:50 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Rooker-Feldman is a complex area, however, as shown in this case.The case is Cho v. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:14 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
  It is said that it should have applied the approach in Galloway v Telegraph ([2006] EWCA Civ 17) and should only have overturned the judge’s decision on balancing conflicting Convention rights if it was “plainly wrong”. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 5:14 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
It has been forcefully argued that the decision of the Court of Appeal is inconsistent with the decision of the House of Lords in Jameel v Wall Street Journal ([2007] 1 AC 359).  [read post]