Search for: "State v. Jones" Results 3361 - 3380 of 6,235
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2011, 11:25 am by Tana Fye
,” while at the same time concluding that the provisions of ICWA were inapplicable by stating that “these proceedings…actually escape applicable federal law on Indian Child Welfare. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 10:38 am by Gene Takagi
” Washington Post“More than 75,000 new cases were reported in the United States on Thursday, the second-highest daily total nationwide since the pandemic began. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 12:49 pm by William Baude
Jones provides some support for a state’s jurisdiction over outsiders who harm that state’s residents. [read post]
20 Aug 2022, 12:54 pm by Josh Blackman
In the past, I have used Judge Jones as the lodestar of the Fifth Circuit's conservatism. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 12:00 am by INFORRM
The Defendant pleaded justification, and in mid-2010, applied that an order for service out of the jurisdiction be set aside on the grounds, derived from Jameel (Youssef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc. [2005] QB 946,  that the Tweet did not constitute a real and substantial tort within the jurisdiction. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 1:17 pm by LTA-Editor
Associate Editor in Chief Jim Jones penned the second article, “United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 9:03 am by Richard Renner
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the use of excessive force by policemen in the course of an arrest, see, e.g., Graham v. [read post]
26 Dec 2006, 7:00 am
"Important venue reforms passed by the West Virginia Legislature in 2003 were struck down this year," Cohen said, referring to the state Supreme Court decision in Morris v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 5:51 am by Amy Howe
” More coverage of Monday’s oral argument in United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:28 am by Amy Howe
At Constitution Daily, Dawinder Sidhu explains why Holt v. [read post]
27 Mar 2018, 10:45 am
[…]” (emphasis added)The Superior Court of Los Angeles County held (BC667011) that, because Feud tried to portray de Havilland as realistically as possible, it was not ‘transformative’ and therefore not eligible for protection under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.The decision was appealed to Court of Appeal of the State of California - Second Appellate District, which yesterday decidedto reverse the lower court’s order [the case is Olivia de… [read post]