Search for: "State of Maine v. Mitchell" Results 21 - 40 of 141
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 May 2022, 4:25 am by Emma Snell
Mitchell McCluskey reports for CNN. [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 2:01 pm by NARF
State of New York (Treaty Rights; Indian Land Claims; Reservation Boundaries) Mitchell v. [read post]
30 Nov 2021, 1:26 am by Tom Smith
They point to an earlier parochial school funding case, Mitchell v. [read post]
15 Nov 2021, 4:26 am by Peter Mahler
Kahn III, last week handed down its decision in Kinyk v Hart, this time denying the motion on the merits. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 8:21 am by CMS
In this post, Stephanie Cheung, Mitchell Abbott and Jana Blahova of CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 40 and consider how the decision impacts on the doctrine of lawful economic duress. [read post]
6 Oct 2021, 3:31 pm by David Kopel
Supreme Court will hear oral argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
22 Sep 2021, 9:58 am by Dale Carpenter
The main exception is the amicus brief filed on behalf of Texas Right to Life (TRL), written by Jonathan Mitchell and Adam Mortara. [read post]
3 Sep 2020, 4:00 am by Administrator
The project has been primarily focused on undertaking empirical research to address two main research questions: what does it cost to deliver an effective civil justice system, and what does it cost – economically and socially – if we fail to do so. [read post]
District Court for the State of Maine issued an order granting a  motion to suppress evidence in United States of America v. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
Speculation is that the attack is state sponsored with China being the main culprit. [read post]
16 Jun 2020, 5:02 am by Giles Peaker
Mitchell, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Islington (2020) EWHC 1478 (Admin) Where a local authority has an initial s.188 Housing Act 1996 duty to provide interim accommodation, but then makes a s.184 decision that the applicant is not in priority need, is that sufficient to bring the s.188 duty to an end? [read post]