Search for: "State v. High"
Results 21 - 40
of 32,045
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
Stock Price Evidence from FTC v. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 1:33 am
Regina (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust; Regina (N) v Secretary of State for Health Court of Appeal “A policy of prohibiting smoking in the premises of an NHS trust, which had the consequence of a ban on smoking for those detained in a high security psychiatric hospital, did not violate the patients' human rights and was [...] [read post]
17 Jan 2024, 7:49 pm
Supreme Court eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion in its 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. [read post]
22 May 2008, 4:43 am
R (G) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2008] EWHC 1096 (Admin); R (N) v Secretary of State for Health; R (B) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust; [2008] WLR (D) 162 “A provision which had the effect of prohibiting smoking in a high security psychiatric hospital was not incompatible with the human rights of detained mental patients and was not unlawful. [read post]
21 Nov 2009, 2:30 pm
In Godfrey v. [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 6:19 am
« Back to newsSubscribeThe post United States v. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 10:57 am
State v. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 8:18 am
See United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 7:52 am
Last week, the state of Arizona, with Counsel of Record Paul Clement, a former clerk to Justice Scalia and now high... [read post]
2 May 2016, 6:21 am
Though the state Supreme Court decided unanimously not to review Daniel Stahl v. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 9:26 pm
Blue and State v. [read post]
9 Oct 2016, 1:09 pm
Lord v. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 2:32 pm
United States v. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 3:03 pm
Here is a Topeka Capital-Journal article reporting that Kathleen Ambrosio won an acquittal in a State v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 2:07 am
Continued detention of failed asylum-seeker is lawful Regina (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Court of Appeal “The continued detention, pending deportation, of a failed asylum-seeker after the end of a term of imprisonment because the safety of the public would be at risk and there was a high risk that he would abscond, was not unlawful. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 7:37 pm
I set the bar pretty high in my preview of the oral argument at CAAF in United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2007, 6:01 pm
High Court Refuses to Hear Death Row Claims in Barbour v. [read post]
12 May 2021, 5:42 am
On today’s episode, Nathan Earwood joins the NC DWI Guy to discuss the practical application and utilization of State v. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 9:02 am
See, e.g., State v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 4:17 pm
Specifically, the high court ruled in Commonwealth v. [read post]
