Search for: "State v. Downs"
Results 2941 - 2960
of 40,832
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Aug 2008, 2:24 pm
State v. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 5:30 am
Auxer v. [read post]
9 Apr 2016, 5:27 pm
Sorochan, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 38; Peter v. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 11:40 am
Flomerfelt v. [read post]
25 Apr 2012, 4:43 pm
Citing Quill Corp. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2009, 12:22 pm
I'm not sure that Sandy's got this locked down. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 10:07 am
In the case of State of New Jersey Department of Corrections v. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 10:07 am
In the case of State of New Jersey Department of Corrections v. [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 6:05 am
However, in Rucho v. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 9:34 am
The decided case was Expressions Hair Design v. [read post]
17 Jun 2019, 5:25 pm
United States (2019) The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Gamble vs. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 4:23 pm
On 3 June 2020 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2020] UKSC 23. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 10:17 am
Holder v. [read post]
13 May 2009, 1:09 pm
The day after the decision was handed down, The Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 (MDSA) was introduced to both houses of Congress. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 2:56 am
Regina v Gul: [2012] EWCA Crim 280; [2012] WLR (D) 44 “Acts by insurgents against the armed forces of a state anywhere in the world which sought to influence a government and were made for political purposes were acts of terrorism for the purposes of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 7:17 pm
On February 21st, 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Prorail BV v. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 9:03 pm
A judge can strike down a regulation if it does not align with the purpose of the statute––one could argue this might have really been the case in Chevron v. [read post]
9 Sep 2021, 7:24 am
Jerome’s Furniture Warehouse v. [read post]
22 Jun 2017, 4:21 pm
In a judgment in the case of Bayev v Russia ([2017] ECHR 572) handed down on 20 June 2017, the Third Section of European Court of Human Rights found – by six votes to one – that the so-called Russian “gay-propaganda law” banning the promotion of homosexuality violated both Article 10 and Article 14 of the Convention. [read post]
30 Dec 2007, 12:11 pm
Bowers v. [read post]
