Search for: "State v. So"
Results 4241 - 4260
of 117,764
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jul 2018, 10:13 am
"So minute or or irregular. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 9:00 am
The Outer House considered the cases of Hunter v Hanley [1955] SC 200 and Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 4:16 am
State, 762 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing Farmer v. [read post]
11 Aug 2012, 11:29 am
Dictum Mess” Not So Simple post was cited in United States v. [read post]
23 May 2008, 7:12 pm
To do so, he had to wade through a thicket of court of appeals' opinions, ultimately siding with a 1977 opinion, United States v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 9:10 pm
Florida (08-7412) and Sullivan v. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 6:01 am
Here are the materials so far in United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 4:33 am
Inability to demonstrate the possession of a required license permits the summary termination of an incumbentMatter of Cravatta v New York State Dept. of Transp., 23 Misc 3d 1137(A)In this case the court considered the application of the so-called "Felix" procedure [Felix v New York City Dep't of Citywide Administrative Services, 3 NY3d 498] in a situation where the incumbent loses or fails to [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 3:01 pm
INS, a decision that recognized state expungements of simple possession drug offenses so [...] [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 12:00 am
In light of recent comments, questions, and Facebook posts, I thought I’d take a moment to clarify some misconceptions about the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 1:38 pm
v. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 2:50 am
Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 7:41 am
See United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 2:29 am
Meanwhile, Google has filed its opposition brief, which just like in the Northern District of California is the epitome of denial:United States of America, et al., v. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 5:00 am
When we mentioned Adkins v. [read post]
4 Apr 2011, 3:37 pm
ARTICLE V (1) Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to deliver up its own nationals under this Treaty but the executive authority of each Contracting Party shall have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it considers that it is proper to do so. (2) For the purposes of this Article - (a) a reference to the executive authority of a Contracting Party shall, in the case of Australia, be construed as a reference to the Attorney-General of Australia; (b)… [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 1:57 am
Why it did so reveals some key insights into how the Sixth Circuit thinks about state-law certification. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 4:05 pm
In his dissent in the Citizen United v. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 8:10 am
The Justices certainly did not speak with one voice when they heard arguments Wednesday in Mississippi v. [read post]
10 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
Imaging, Inc. v. [read post]
