Search for: "State v. Case"
Results 401 - 420
of 175,918
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2022, 4:00 am
State v. [read post]
26 Nov 2012, 7:32 am
On November 13, 2012 the Supreme Court announced its decision in United States v. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 7:53 pm
”) The post State v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 11:34 am
Here is the order: 090712 Order granting review The case is State v. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 10:27 pm
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Bullcoming v. [read post]
17 Apr 2014, 10:57 am
The Court wrote, quoting the State Supreme Court's 1980 decision in Bishop v. [read post]
4 Aug 2020, 6:19 am
« Back to newsSubscribeThe post United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 1:30 am
In many cases, family tracing has the potential to identify whether a young person’s family is alive or dead; and establish contact with family members, which could in turn lead to corroboration of the account of persecution e.g. from the Taliban and/or from the Afghan State. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 4:00 am
See State v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 8:46 am
The defendant’s merits brief in United States v. [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 9:22 am
State v. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 4:00 am
Our case of the day, Wuxi Taihu Tractor Co. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 6:19 am
Recently the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
18 May 2021, 9:25 am
On 10 May 2021, the Supreme Court heard the appeal in R (Majera) (formerly SM (Rwanda)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”). [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 5:00 am
State and Littrell v. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 11:32 am
The case decided Monday, United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 7:40 pm
The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear an important case concerning the government’s foreign affairs powers, Bond v. [read post]
23 Jun 2019, 5:05 pm
Case citation: Williby v. [read post]
19 Aug 2015, 1:30 am
The Supreme Court in R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57 held by a 3:2 majority that the blanket requirement that all applicants for a student loan have “indefinite leave to remain” is discriminatory and must be amended by the Government. [read post]
