Search for: "State v. Person"
Results 3421 - 3440
of 75,612
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2016, 12:18 pm
In Davis v. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 12:18 pm
In Davis v. [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 8:00 am
In her recent concurring opinion in United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 6:28 am
“Precarious” was not, in their Lordships’ view, “a term of art” and was similar but not identical to the guidance imparted in Jeunesse v Netherlands (2015) 60 EHRR 17 whereby family life was rendered precarious from the outset where those “involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host state would from the outset be precarious. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 9:57 am
On March 1, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Federal Communications Commission v. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 7:26 am
The “state secrets” cases are General Dynamics Corp. v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 4:52 pm
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani] State v. [read post]
12 Oct 2006, 10:08 am
Today, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Ehrlich v. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
State v. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
State v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 9:13 pm
uBid v. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 2:29 pm
” The facts of Snyder v. [read post]
3 May 2023, 2:20 am
Under s.6(1), a “religious group” operates without State registration and acquisition of legal personality and may include Russian nationals and lawfully resident non-nationals as participants [14&15]. [read post]
14 Jul 2022, 3:17 pm
See Palmer v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 10:41 pm
The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Graham v. [read post]
9 Oct 2020, 6:30 am
Responding to the democratic zeitgeist of the 1950s and 1960s, when one person, one vote became a dominant norm of American politics, and when the Voting Rights Act of 1965 promised a radical transformation of Southern politics, the rising support fo [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 12:16 am
In particular, they alleged that there has been no proper assessment of the impact of the change in law, it is discriminatory as against natural persons, and there is no good reason for it.Sky pointed out that the defence was originally only intended to apply to natural persons but was construed as covering legal entities as well by the CJEU in the Anheuser-Busch v Buddejovickybudvar (C-245/02 [2004] ECR-I-10989). [read post]
10 May 2019, 12:08 pm
The Court also looked to the recent United States Fifth Circuit opinion of Deperrodil v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 7:04 am
"The suit also says that the order prevents plaintiff from participating in in-person worship services.Yesterday in Wisconsin Legislature v. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 2:48 pm
On the consumer litigation front, today the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Ticketmaster, et al. v. [read post]
