Search for: "Reed v. State"
Results 361 - 380
of 2,136
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] On January 18, Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram Amar filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 2:21 pm
Reed, Rent-a-Center v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 2:54 am
Yesterday morning the Court heard oral arguments in Reed v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 4:29 am
Starting on Monday 30 January 2012 are the appeals of PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, W & BB v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Z, G, U & Y v Secretary of State for the Home Department, scheduled for 1.5 days to be heard by Lords Phillips, Brown, Kerr, Dyson and Wilson. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 5:22 am
In R v Gul [2013] UKSC 64, an appeal concerning other aspects of the anti-terrorism regime, the Court stated that “detention of the kind provided for in the Schedule represents the possibility of serious invasions of personal liberty”: [64]. [read post]
21 May 2018, 10:23 am
The case is Byrd v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 3:26 pm
Foster, et al. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 3:26 pm
Foster, et al. v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 6:00 am
Or is it better understood as a deferral of the question, like Reed v. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Bruch v. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 6:08 am
Wollschlaeger v. [read post]
24 Mar 2007, 6:53 am
State, 2007 Md. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 1:44 pm
In Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
Pa. 1985) (can’t tell what state’s law); Seiden v. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 7:36 am
State District Judge John Creuzot sentenced Mr. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 1:00 am
The case was heard by Lady Hale, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am
There is no Parliamentary authorisation for the loss of rights in any legislation made by Parliament and, in the absence of this, the appeal should be dismissed. 14:27: Lord Reed suggests “life has moved on from the times of Dicey”. 14:23: Lord Carnworth asks a question about the ‘one-line’ bill which James Eadie QC suggested the government would introduce if it loses the appeal. 14:21: Dominic Chambers QC summarises that the outcome of the… [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 1:07 pm
Brickman v. [read post]
