Search for: "State v. D. S."
Results 381 - 400
of 43,531
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jan 2011, 11:43 am
Habeas Corpus Standard of review 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) applies to a habeas corpus petition, even though the state court’s order was unaccompanied by an opinion explaining the court’s reasoning. [read post]
2 Jul 2024, 7:41 am
N.Y.(1968) held (in a majority opinion by Justice Brennan) that states may ban sales to minors of pornographic material that's "obscene as to minors" (even if it's fully protected for adults). [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 9:30 pm
As Hoffer details Hamilton's arguments for the supremacy of treaty law over state law, the significance of Rutgers v. [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 12:40 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 4:58 pm
Ellen D. [read post]
3 Feb 2017, 5:26 pm
Of interest in 3Form v. [read post]
11 Oct 2006, 5:30 am
[S]ee Werner v. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 4:43 pm
D. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 4:43 pm
D. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Circuit”) partially overturned a decision issued by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) in Absolute Healthcare d/b/a Curaleaf Arizona v. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 6:48 am
Jaeger (D. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 6:47 am
See State v. [read post]
5 May 2007, 5:47 pm
Had the state just banned condoms or the pill, it's hard to imagine a different outcome.Maybe a harder case would be presented if the state offered a health justification for the ban. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 11:22 am
State v. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 9:42 pm
Stone, 2019 WL 6790500 (D. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 10:20 am
It departed from this Court’s precedent, and “create[d] a circuit split,” Pet. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 12:00 am
In light of recent comments, questions, and Facebook posts, I thought I’d take a moment to clarify some misconceptions about the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 8:28 am
Genetech, Inc., 127 S. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 6:06 am
Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 629, 111 S. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 4:07 am
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina [2010] EWCA Civ 41; [2010] WLR (D) 28 “A court had no jurisdiction to permit a claimant to serve proceedings on a foreign state unless it was satisfied that there was, at the least, a good arguable case that the defendant state was not immune from suit. [read post]
