Search for: "State v. FIELDS" Results 4321 - 4340 of 12,889
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Feb 2018, 10:30 am by Rick St. Hilaire
The University of Chicago no longer is in danger of losing ancient Iranian artifacts following Wednesday's United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Jenny Rubin, et al. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 7:26 am by William Ford
Supreme Court last cited one of its pieces in McDonald v. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 7:56 pm
That exception, touching on issues of human rights and economic activity, has itself been limited by courts at times (National Association of Manufacturers v. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 1:00 am by Aimee Denholm
Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Anor, heard 7 Dec 2017. [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 1:35 pm by familoo
If the state wants to stick it's nose into the lives of families (as it undoubtedly must do sometimes), it must stick that nose in only as far as is necessary and proportionate, and only where authorised by law (usually but not always it is the Children Act 1989 which gives that authorisation in this field). [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 10:36 am by Timothy Edgar
  The closest analogy for Mueller’s decision to charge the Russian trolls is probably the May 2014 indictment in United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 6:01 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Roe, which upheld a state law limiting the use of Medicaid funds to pay for abortions. [read post]
16 Feb 2018, 2:10 pm by Jordan Brunner
William Ford posted the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in IRAP v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 8:27 am
Yahli Shereshevsky (Michigan/Hebrew) - Back in The Game: The Reengagement of States in International Humanitarian Law Making  Commentator – Moshe Hirsch (Hebrew)   11:00-12:30 Parallel Sessions    Panel IV – Legal Responses to Violence    Chair – Guy Harpaz (Hebrew) Asli Ozcelik-Olcay (Glasgow), The Role of International Law in Peace Negotiations: Certainty, legitimacy, malleability Shiri Krebs (Deakin) – When More… [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 8:13 am by William Morriss
”11 It also stated explicitly that “whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact” and that “[a]ny fact, such as this one, that is pertinent to the invalidity conclusion must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 11:20 am by Christopher G. Hill
In a new case out of the Suffolk Circuit Court, Seeman v. [read post]