Search for: "State v. Below" Results 281 - 300 of 23,327
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2024, 12:20 am by Frank Cranmer
Significantly, Linden J refers to R (Williamson) v Secretary of State [2005] UKHL15 and R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 as the two leading Article 9 cases in this jurisdiction. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 2:14 pm by Daly Barnett
It’s been a long two years since the Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 11:02 am by Josh Blackman
[The walls are closing on universal, non-party injunctions against state laws. ] Labrador v. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 10:20 am by David Aaron
It targets non-U.S. persons who are outside the United States and authorizes the government to compel certain communication service providers within the United States to assist the government in acquiring those targets’ communications. [read post]
  In VX v Gemeinde Ummendorf (C-456/22), the CJEU found that there is no de minimis threshold for damage, below which individuals cannot claim for compensation. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 3:28 am by Eleonora Rosati
This year, the keynote speech will be delivered by Allan James, Senior Hearing Officer at the UKIPO.The event will now dedicate one of its two panels to a discussion of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Lidl v Tesco.Starting at 2pm and finishing with drinks and canapes from 6:15pm at Simmons’ offices in Citypoint, Moorgate, the full line up is below:14:00-14:30 – Registration14:30-14:40 – Introduction and welcome (Darren Meale)14:40-15:40 –… [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
A line between interfering with and expressing a negative reaction to speech is not viewpoint based, but (as discussed below) is at worst a content-neutral regulation of the time, place, and manner of speech.One fundamental reason that disruption can be prohibited is that disruption goes beyond trying to [read post]
16 Apr 2024, 4:27 pm by Eugene Volokh
" … Combined with the rule of lenity and the constitutional concerns identified below, it seems likely that … courts would interpret this provision to not apply to such official communications from Congress. [2.] [read post]