Search for: "State v. Self"
Results 4461 - 4480
of 15,822
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Sep 2016, 11:38 am
[Note to self: try to find side gig as a tech television reporter.] [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 10:30 pm
Chapter 28 of Outside In describes Back v. [read post]
16 Mar 2023, 10:38 am
State v. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 3:01 pm
In US v. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 2:43 am
Hampshire Group, Limited v. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 3:44 am
Patent Docs, in a post about University of Pittsburgh v. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 11:44 am
Here is the opinion in Sweet v. [read post]
23 Apr 2011, 3:05 pm
(Eugene Volokh) The case is Pontigon v. [read post]
27 Aug 2008, 1:40 am
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City insofar as it requires property owners to seek compensation in state court to ripen a federal takings claim, where four justices of this Court declared in San Remo Hotel v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 7:50 am
Today, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C-253/19 – MH, NI v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 12:45 pm
In McDonald v. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 10:22 am
The case for that proposition is Rentas v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 8:52 am
The most interesting one is Altria Group v. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 9:50 am
Doed, LLC v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 5:27 pm
The court also concludes that Vermont’s program is unreasonable as applied to Byrne’s JN36TN plate:” Related posts:Why Wasn’t United States v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 5:26 am
R (on the application of Cart) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Respondent); R (on the application of MR (Pakistan)) (FC) (Appellant) v The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2011] UKSC 28, 22/6/2011 – read judgment; press summary here Unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal are still subject to judicial review by the High Court, but only… [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 10:55 pm
Further indirect criticism was levied at the UK’s increasing use of electronic surveillance and the overly frequent authorisation (including self-authorisation) of “interception warrants”. [read post]
22 Jun 2020, 4:49 pm
Lately, the US Supreme Court has narrowed the doctrine, including for state licensing boards that seek its protection when sued under the antitrust laws (North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 11:33 am
In this second post of a series examining the self-made constitutional crisis engulfing the Episcopal Church (USA), the focus will be on the complications created by the ongoing existence and treatment of four pseudo-dioceses (San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh and Quincy; another may soon be forced into existence in South Carolina).These are all invited disasters; they need not have turned out as badly as they have. [read post]
21 Oct 2007, 11:00 pm
Tuttle, Ball on a Needle: Hein V. [read post]
