Search for: "State v. Field" Results 4481 - 4500 of 12,956
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Dec 2017, 10:04 pm by Afro-Buff
 THE HONDA JUDGMENTIn giving content to this concept, the court in the Honda ruling (paragraph 11/46) made the following historical references:“[In] Burnkloof Caterers (Pty) Ltd v Horseshoe Caterers (Green Point) (Pty) Ltd 1974 (2) SA 125 (C) at 137 …Friedman AJ stated:‘It would appear, however, from the following passage from the judgment of WESSELS, J., in Policansky Bros. v Hermann and Canard, 1910 T.P.D. 1265 at pp. 1278 - 9, that in the… [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 3:00 am by Garrett Hinck
Supreme Court last cited one of its pieces in McDonald v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Burnden Holdings (UK) Ltd v Fielding & Anor, heard 7 Dec 2017. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 12:11 am
A few days ago the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued the much-awaited decision Coty Germany GmbH v Parfümerie Akzente GmbH, C-230/16. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 8:16 am
The official and his wife were evacuated from Tashkent, the location of the USAID headquarters in Uzbekistan, by the State Department, for evaluation. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 9:20 am by Stephen Wermiel
” The much-quoted line comes from West Virginia State Board of Education v. [read post]
8 Dec 2017, 9:03 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  1902 marked first case, and also introduction of Brownie camera, opened up a new field. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 9:00 pm by Lesley Wexler
The Convention on Conventional Weapons Protocol V (on Explosive Remnants of War) also regulates US use of cluster munitions, as it is a state party to this international treaty. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm by ligitsec
105 S.Ct. 2218 85 L.Ed.2d 588 HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS, INC. and the Reader’s Digest Association, Inc., Petitionersv.NATION ENTERPRISES and the Nation Associates, Inc. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 5:31 pm by LundgrenJohnson
  And, the question of whether an officer must provide a driver the opportunity to speak with counsel, even when requesting a test outside of Minnesota’s Implied Consent statutory scheme that carries various civil penalties, is currently under review by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. [read post]