Search for: "Strong v. State" Results 381 - 400 of 16,333
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jul 2022, 4:24 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The correct approach is to follow the guidance which was stated to be “authoritative” in KO (Nigeria), namely the direction in the Upper Tribunal case of MK (Sierra Leone) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] INLR 563 (“MK”). [read post]
10 Sep 2020, 3:00 pm
  That's a strong argument.But that's most definitely not what they're saying here. [read post]
13 Jan 2013, 4:20 pm by Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
The Supreme Court hears argument Wednesday in Gunn v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 6:51 pm
I didn't have a strong preexisting feeling on the merits of the dispute, but in the end, I was entirely persuaded that Judge Fisher was right. [read post]
7 May 2018, 9:13 pm
Indeed, non-state actors - who are often financially strong, technologically well-equipped and highly organised - attack states in ways that previously only nation states were capable of. [read post]
8 Nov 2014, 1:10 pm by Sean Hanover
Though not strictly required, the fact there can be no jury trial on state matters in bankruptcy court is a strong motivator for the Bankruptcy Court to send the matter back to state.The controlling cases are: Barge v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 1:03 pm
Justice Corrigan authors a powerful opinion that holds that it's not permissible for the police to conduct a Terry stop just because someone's in a high crime area and pretending to tie his shoe behind a car in order to avoid the police, and Justice Evan authors an equally powerful concurrence (joined by a majority of the Court) that highlights the racial implications of a rule that assumes that the "normal" response to a police encounter is to welcome and/or consent to… [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 7:24 pm by Matthew Scarola
’” But it left undisturbed the Court’s strong suggestion in District of Columbia v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 2:57 pm by Kathryn Briuglio
In a ruling on which we previously reported, the appellate court held that the strong public policy of the state in which suit is brought could render unenforceable a choice of state law provision in a marine insurance contract. [read post]