Search for: "State v. Mai" Results 4161 - 4180 of 133,139
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Apr 2014, 5:58 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
It certifies the issue to the State Court of Appeals for a definitive answer.The case is Schoenefeld v. [read post]
13 Apr 2013, 7:54 am by Scott Deatherage
In a conversation with one of our attorneys in our Austin office, the subject of the types of permits or authorizations that a business may be requried to obtain in the State of Texas. [read post]
15 May 2020, 2:02 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
On May 6, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. [read post]
14 Mar 2022, 12:11 pm
 We note that the Nevada Supreme Court recently decided A Cab, LLC v. [read post]
23 May 2007, 2:19 pm
See United States v. [read post]
29 May 2012, 4:24 am by tracey
High Court (Administrative Court) Sea & Land Power & Energy Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2012] EWHC 1419 (Admin) (29 May 2012) Bakhsh, R (on the application of) v Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust [2012] EWHC 1445 (Admin) (28 May 2012) Sreedharan, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for the County of Greater Manchester (Manchester City District) [2012] EWHC 1386 (Admin) (28… [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 3:00 am
 The judiciary, right from the famous case of Virsa Singh v State of Punjab 1958 AIR 465 has relied literally on the medical reports to adjudicate the actus reus of the accused and this reliance has been time and again criticized. [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 9:02 am
 The judiciary, right from the famous case of Virsa Singh v State of Punjab 1958 AIR 465 has relied literally on the medical reports to adjudicate the actus reus of the accused and this reliance has been time and again criticized. [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:42 am by Lyle Denniston
  But the constitutionality of the program is raised as a separate question, in an appeal by Arizona state officials — Garriott v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 3:25 pm
In a case captioned State v Federico, the NJ Appellate Division held that a defendant convicted of a DWI offense and multiple other traffic offenses may not be sentenced to more than 180 days in county jail. [read post]