Search for: "Meanes v. State" Results 301 - 320 of 68,832
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jul 2023, 6:21 am by Charles Sartain
It depends on context, says the Supreme Court of Texas in Finley Resources Inc. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 5:30 am by Samantha Knights, Matrix
This week a seven strong bench of the Supreme Court will hear an important appeal concerning statelessness, Secretary for State of the Home Department v B2. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 6:06 pm by Jon
“NECESSARY” MEANS WHAT MUST BE DONE FOR SOMETHING ELSE TO BE DONE “PROPER” MEANS FOR A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE, REASONABLE, AND JUST “CARRYING” MEANS MAKING AN EFFORT “EXECUTION” MEANS AN ENFORCEMENT EFFORT It is performance of an official enforcement act. [read post]
18 Apr 2023, 4:05 pm by Lawrence Solum
Such a rejection might eliminate any possibility of federal court review of any state court decision reviewing, construing, or applying state laws governing federal elections where such decisions focus solely on the meaning of state statutes and state constitutional provisions. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 3:58 am by tracey
W v M and others [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam);  [2011] WLR (D)  283 “Pursuant to section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 it was not in the best interests of a patient diagnosed as being in a minimally conscious state to authorise the withdrawal of all life sustaining treatment including nutrition and hydration by artifical means (‘ANH’).” WLR Daily, 28th September 2011 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
31 May 2023, 11:18 am by Alan Brackett
(“CWA”), the Supreme Court has examined the meaning of the term “waters of the United States. [read post]
31 May 2023, 11:18 am by Alan Brackett
(“CWA”), the Supreme Court has examined the meaning of the term “waters of the United States. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 4:42 pm by INFORRM
However, just as it seemed that preliminary issue trials on meaning were now the done thing, Nicklin J refused permission for one in Mohammed Dahlan v Middle East Eye Ltd ([2019] EWHC 2261 (QB)), stating that a preliminary issue trial will have little to no benefit where a public interest defence is the principal defence being run (unless the meaning was not found to be defamatory at all), because meaning does not set the parameters of that defence… [read post]