Search for: "Bounds v. State"
Results 4521 - 4540
of 9,960
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2015, 6:12 am
The decision is here: Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 6:30 am
Pruitt, Jr., Special Collections-Collection Development Librarian, Bounds Law Library, University of Alabama School of Law. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 3:34 am
’ (Riley v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 1:00 am
We can dig our heels in and say ‘Sorry we aren’t bound by your decisions and we don’t agree with this decision for these reasons’. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 12:52 pm
Alaskasland.com, LLC v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 11:53 am
May v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 11:53 am
May v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 11:50 am
On September 28, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in the long-awaited case of Sakkab v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 8:18 am
Not since Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 6:00 am
”[v] Justice Anthony M. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 1:25 pm
The case is State v. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 1:25 pm
The case is State v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 3:00 pm
Since the standard of review was "abuse of discretion," the justices felt compelled to defer to the trial judge's ruling, which relied on a 1972 Supreme Court precedent, Neil v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 1:09 pm
Vermont v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 3:15 am
RULLCA legislation is pending in three other states. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 4:23 pm
This post concerns the Opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-362/14: Schrems v. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 4:30 am
The Court was bound by Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Ruas [2010] EWCA Civ 291, holding that the Claimant was an ‘employed person’ with the meaning of Article 1(a) of the Regulation, rather than an “employed person”, with Title III Ch 1, which deals with the portability of sickness and maternity benefits, engaged to restrict the right to export DLA. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 2:50 pm
In Parker v. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
In Barker v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 5:07 am
↑ A & M Records, Inc. v. [read post]
