Search for: "People v. David"
Results 4161 - 4180
of 6,015
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2011, 7:41 am
So, if the ECJ had the power to fine us massively, yes we would have a choice ignore them (like we did when David Norris won his case before the European Court on Human Rights), but when is the freedom to do that cut down to such an extent that the executive has de facto no option but to comply? [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 5:05 am
PatLit's David C. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 4:17 am
Fairley v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 4:00 am
”David E. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 1:20 pm
(United States v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 8:31 am
Gonzalez-Servin v. [read post]
6 Dec 2011, 5:54 am
See Handschu v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 10:30 am
The following are the people, with their former addresses, excluded as of October 20 and October 27, 2010. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 5:01 am
Code § 720; People v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 1:22 am
Preston, R (on the application of) v Wandsworth Borough Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 3174 (Admin) (01 December 2011) December 1, 2011 High Court: Removal of voting rights for people who leave UK for over 15 years not contrary to EU freedom of movement law, although could in principle if rules “unjustifiably interfere with the freedom of movement”. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 9:36 pm
PatLit hosts the maiden post from its new blog team member David C. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 5:07 pm
David Kotz has come under increasing fire from within the agency for allegedly instilling a climate of fear among employees in the organization. [read post]
4 Dec 2011, 4:04 pm
Levy v. [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 7:22 pm
Here is the opinion, Rhodes v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 3:20 pm
For instance, noted Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder, noted Pentecostalist theologian David K. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 3:24 am
Not to stroke your ego, but people take your stuff seriously. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 11:20 am
Many of the cases which outlined the requirements of impartial investigation (like the Jordan case cited above, but including McKerr v United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, Kelly and Others v United Kingdom, no. 30054/96 and Shanaghan v United Kingdom, no. 37715/97) involved the UK directly (and particularly its security operations in Northern Ireland). [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 8:19 am
” “The case is a setback in Pandit’s vision of delivering financial services with a higher sense of responsibility to customers,” said David Knutson, a credit analyst with Legal & General Investment Management in Chicago. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 5:55 am
What is fixed cannot be altered except through Article V amendment; and3. [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 4:00 am
” Viacom v. [read post]
