Search for: "Mays v. State" Results 321 - 340 of 127,268
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Dec 2019, 2:30 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On appeal from: [2017] EWCA Civ 2028 These appeals raised common issues regarding the scope of the Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (Case C-34/09) [2012] QB 265 (“Zambrano”) principle which states that a non-member state national (“TCN”) parent of a European Union citizen child resident within the EU is entitled to reside in the EU. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 5:18 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here: US v Samish Cert Petition Samish–Pet App (final) Questions presented: 1. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 9:00 pm by Adjunct LawProfs
Donohue et al v Paterson, USDC, Northern District of New York, 1:10-CV-00543 (LEK/DRH) [Filed May 28,2010] Federal District Court Judge Lawrence E. [read post]
30 May 2018, 2:49 pm by Aurora Barnes
In its conference of May 31, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether, pursuant to United States v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 1:34 pm by Donna Eng
Just a head’s up to all the South Florida criminal defense attorneys who are following the hot topic of the constitutionality of Florida’s drug possession statute, section 893.13: the Florida Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of State v. [read post]
1 May 2008, 2:18 am
Regina (BAPIO Action Ltd and Another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another House of Lords “Government guidance to National Health Service employers which had the effect of preventing overseas trainee doctors from being offered postgraduate training places in NHS hospitals was unlawful. [read post]
2 May 2008, 1:44 am
R (BAPIO Action Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2008] UKHL 27; [2008] WLR (D) 133 “Departmental guidance to NHS trusts which had the effect of preventing trainee doctors from overseas being offered postgraduate training places in NHS hospitals was unlawful. [read post]
18 May 2007, 1:12 am
However, in a May 15 decision denying State Farm's motion to dismiss in another case, Palmer v. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 10:27 am
State, this Court held that an item in plain view may only be seized when its evidentiary nature is apparent without any further investigation. [read post]