Search for: "State v. Humphreys"
Results 381 - 400
of 567
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2014, 1:37 pm
United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 8:34 am
The case is Humphreys v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 7:37 pm
Edelman v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 7:41 am
Humphrey.The case is Poventud v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 2:43 pm
Humphrey. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 7:46 am
Sullivan, 658 F.2d 93, 96 n.4 (3d Cir. 1983) (en banc); Humphreys v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 9:46 am
Then, state and federal courts were reluctant to apply tort law even where automobile-accident victims claimed their injuries resulted from the failure of manufacturers to exercise reasonable care in the design of their motor vehicles. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 2:05 pm
State, 600 So.2d 967 (Miss. 1992); Martin v. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 8:34 pm
While covering these events, my blog has been inundated with comments expressing outrage at FDA and state regulators for raw milk cheese “crackdowns. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 8:16 am
Fischer (2005, 2011) Thinking Like a Writer: A Lawyer’s Guide to Writing and Editing, by Steven V. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 3:51 pm
There I briefly discussed the complicated issues of (1) choosing the right state statute of limitations, (2) accrual of section 1983 claims and (3) when section 1983 claims are […] [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 6:39 am
That issue brought about a slugfest in the Second Circuit last week.The case is Poventud v. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 12:00 am
“Moreover, Article V of the Constitution, governing its amendment, provides ‘that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage [vote] in the Senate. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 10:30 am
S. 356, 363 (2006) (“[W]e are not bound to follow our dicta in a prior case in which the point now at issue was not fully debated”); Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 6:00 am
Indeed, in 2011, this favoritism policy was the cornerstone of the Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 4:36 am
Yet, in Humphrey v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 4:36 am
Yet, in Humphrey v. [read post]
