Search for: "STRAND v. US " Results 281 - 300 of 640
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2017, 6:38 am by INFORRM
Complicating factors Following the Google Spain v Costeja case, the data protection authorities have identified criteria used to assess the merits of a delisting request based on the data subject’s right to be forgotten (see here for the CNIL’s guidance on such criteria, and here for the ICO’s). [read post]
8 Feb 2017, 7:45 am
Most would find it difficult unravel the distinct strands of law in the United States, each of which deeply embedded within their own internally coherent systems of generation, interpretation and application. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 12:07 pm by Nate Russell
Lindsay talked about the “twin strands” of the US legal tradition: the conservative force on one hand, which preserve values, rights and ideals; and the innovative, activist strand that serves as the cutting edge of social change. [read post]
4 Feb 2017, 5:08 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Trump, C17-0141 uses the words "parens patrie" to describe how the harms to residents extend to harms to the states.Judge Robart cites to Texas v. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 9:26 am by Jordan Brunner
Quinta Jurecic posted the Lawfare Podcast: Goldsmith v. [read post]
The Court noted that drainage districts have no statutory authority to regulate farmer nitrate use or mandate changes in farming practices. [read post]
The Court noted that drainage districts have no statutory authority to regulate farmer nitrate use or mandate changes in farming practices. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 10:51 am by Ian Patterson
In resolving the case, the ASBCA turned to the longstanding contracting doctrine first developed in G.L Christian & Associates v. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 4:09 am
There are, of course, substantial shortcomings and blind spots to the Indian Constitution – ADM Jabalpur, Koushal, Ranjit Udeshi, Rajbala v State of Haryana, etc, etc. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am by Blog Editorial
He says that the Government’s attempt to effect these changes using the royal prerogative offends the imperative rule of our constitution. 15.18 The Lord Advocate for the Scottish Government, the Rt Hon W. [read post]