Search for: "State v. M. V."
Results 4461 - 4480
of 29,347
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2021, 8:05 am
Sandford, Plessy v. [read post]
23 Mar 2018, 3:25 pm
In August, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 1:49 pm
And I’m not sure the record in the Zubik case indicates whether Highmark and/or UPMC would provide the coverage if DOL requested them to do so. [read post]
9 Apr 2007, 12:38 pm
I'm glad that Justice Richman agrees, and that we've now cleaned up the law here. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 11:24 am
United States, 2004 U.S. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 12:00 am
STATE v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 9:17 am
Don’t misunderstand, I’m glad it’s gone. [read post]
19 Apr 2017, 12:26 pm
” Importantly, in State v. [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 5:50 am
In United States v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 7:08 am
A federal district court applied an incorrect legal standard for “actual use” by plaintiff Erik M. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 11:07 am
See, e.g., Hasty v. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 4:39 am
As it also explains, most state courts in the United States are courts of “general” jurisdiction, which means they can hear “any case over which no other tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 5:10 am
Dean v. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 4:58 pm
So, while there may have been a strong originalist case in Coker, there is scant historical evidence to support a finding for the State in Kennedy v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 7:25 am
I’m not sure the distinction really holds up. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 11:17 am
I think this week’s ruling in Burdick v. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 5:12 am
J noted that R v Purdy suggested that the UKSC would offer some assistance where a recent judgment was inconsistent with subsequent ECHR judgments (see also Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) [2009] 3 WLR 74, cited by Lord Brown in Horncastle at [118], referring to the wonderful sentence of Lord Rodger: ""Argentoratum locutum, iudicium finitum - Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 5:12 am
J noted that R v Purdy suggested that the UKSC would offer some assistance where a recent judgment was inconsistent with subsequent ECHR judgments (see also Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) [2009] 3 WLR 74, cited by Lord Brown in Horncastle at [118], referring to the wonderful sentence of Lord Rodger: ""Argentoratum locutum, iudicium finitum - Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 8:09 am
., Christina M. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 8:09 am
., Christina M. [read post]
