Search for: "Head v State"
Results 3941 - 3960
of 14,739
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jan 2014, 1:25 pm
Blalock v. [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 4:00 am
Assigning this Act or a class of laws of this nature to Parliament would forever alter the constitutional balance that exists between the heads of power allotted to Parliament and the provincial Legislatures in the federal Canadian state. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 9:19 am
United States, 17-5165 Issue: Whether Richardson v. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 10:58 am
In Farina v. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 5:08 am
The decision was based on the new interpretive approach announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 7:08 am
Moreover, it was clear that the final award constituted the final decision of the arbitrator on whether the employee’s termination was justified and indeed it bore the heading “Final Award. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 9:00 am
Fund v. [read post]
4 Mar 2022, 4:30 am
Abbasi in 2017 and Hernandez v. [read post]
19 Nov 2006, 8:49 am
State, 780 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. [read post]
26 Jan 2018, 12:21 am
Yesterday, the ECJ has rendered its decision in Case C-498/16 Maximilian Schrems v Facebook Ireland Limited. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 2:03 am
However, this testimony was allowed and the court no doubt invoked Michigan v. [read post]
27 Nov 2016, 3:17 pm
In Newmaker v. [read post]
30 Aug 2018, 12:13 pm
The best way to understand where the Supreme Court may be headed is to read Kavanaugh’s past writings. [read post]
2 Jun 2022, 9:00 pm
Moreover, if this supercharged version of stare decisis prevailed, then the Court couldn’t easily overrule (or at least justify overruling) very wrong-headed cases like Plessy v. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 6:00 am
Watts Construction, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 12:14 pm
Second, the Colorado Court of Appeals in Coats v. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 6:00 am
"More fundamentally, preclusive effect is limited to only those 'issues that were actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided' " (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 AD3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Ross v Medical Liab. [read post]
8 Aug 2024, 6:00 am
"More fundamentally, preclusive effect is limited to only those 'issues that were actually litigated, squarely addressed and specifically decided' " (Church v New York State Thruway Auth., 16 AD3d 808, 810 [3d Dept 2005], quoting Ross v Medical Liab. [read post]
5 Apr 2021, 6:30 am
Opening up the invitation to non-state actors battling to save democracy is a good idea, but I would push the envelope further: any state attending the Summit must prove its democratic credentials by including its head of government and the leader of its largest opposition party in its official delegation. [read post]
26 Dec 2007, 8:08 pm
A helpful reader alerted me to a fascinating opinion from the Oregon Court of Appeals in Oregon v. [read post]
