Search for: "Shah v. Shah" Results 261 - 280 of 604
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jul 2023, 7:51 am by Just Security
Guantanamo Biden Must Act on Landmark UN Special Rapporteur Guantanamo Report by Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) Cyber Bugs in the Software Liability Debate by Chinmayi Sharma and John Speed Meyers Social Media Content Regulation / First Amendment Missouri v. [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 5:15 am
Can the government enact Shah Bano-type legislation if it violates a fundamental right of the Constitution? [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 12:20 am
Massey, Church Schisms, Church Property, and Civil Authority, (March 26, 2009).Prakash Shah, Transnational Hindu Law Adoptions: Recognition and Treatment in Britain, (International Journal of Law in Context, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2009).Paul Horwitz, Demographics and Distrust: The Eleventh Circuit on Graduation Prayer in Adler v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 12:00 am
From SSRN:Elliott Visconsi, The Invention of Criminal Blasphemy: Rex v. [read post]
2 Jun 2024, 6:10 am by Just Security
Criminal Responsibility for Organized Armed Groups by Rogier Bartels (@RogierBartels) Immigration Law and Policy Why Trump v. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 9:05 pm by Series of Essays
  Expanding Presidential Influence on Agency Adjudication July 23, 2021 | Bijal Shah, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2017, 6:31 am by INFORRM
 We are aware of only two trials: Guise v Shah, a claim in libel, harassment and data protection, listed for 5 days before Dingemans J, beginning on 2 May 2017. [read post]
28 Nov 2014, 6:16 am by Lucy Hayes, Olswang LLP
 Beatson LJ held that there is no requirement for the joint tortfeasor to be proximate in time and place when the tort is carried out (Shah v Gale [2005] EWHC 1087 (QB)). [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
OMH subsequently adopted a permanent regulation that incorporated the mandatory mask-wearing requirement into its Rules concerning preventing influenza transmission [see 14 NYCRR 509].** In Matter of Spence v Shah, 136 AD3d 1242, the Appellate Division determined that the DOH regulation was not arbitrary, capricious, irrational or contrary to law.The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_02696.htm [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 9:33 am by Rajiv Kr. Choudhry
Refused, 3(k) V Saravanan 4050/CHENP/2007 E2INTERACTIVE INC. [read post]