Search for: "State v. Main"
Results 4301 - 4320
of 11,548
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Nov 2014, 11:35 am
The case is Florida v. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 6:25 am
Finally, at Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman has a post on Tapia v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 8:30 am
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Tribal Sovereign Immunity) State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2018.htmlState of North Dakota v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 1:07 am
Supreme Court's two recent Second Amendment opinions, District of Columbia v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 6:06 am
RESENDIZ-PONCE AND RUSSELL v. [read post]
22 May 2019, 5:57 am
This is in stark contrast to previous years, when the main concern of these bodies was economic. [read post]
11 May 2017, 7:02 am
The CCJ noted that this case was similar in circumstances to the previous case of Rudisa Beverages & Juices N.V. and Caribbean International Distributors Inc. v The State of Guyana. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 6:22 am
Also, the Kat keeps re-reading Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states: "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. [read post]
18 May 2010, 10:41 am
In Aschroft v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 7:31 pm
” The ONCA referenced the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision, Bazley v. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 6:44 am
Citing Arcor, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:58 am
Tribes usually try to avoid state regulation by asserting their immunity from state authority, and the Supreme Court decided a case affirming tribal immunity this year captioned Michigan v. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 5:48 am
In both decisions the courts discussed United States Dep’t of Treasury v. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 5:15 am
In one of the cases, Vitra v. [read post]
14 Sep 2018, 2:16 am
The main discussion is about whether the expression “torta” can be classified as a Traditional Designation. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 6:00 am
Margain v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 1:30 pm
Maine PUC v. [read post]
4 May 2016, 1:39 pm
v=Tt-mpuR_QHQ). [read post]
19 Sep 2021, 3:11 am
The court clarified that the plaintiffs do not need to prove that discriminatory purpose was “the” main motive for enacting the legislation, but just that it was “a” motivating factor. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 7:30 am
One of the main is issues at stake in Trump v. [read post]
