Search for: "STATE v MILLER"
Results 4661 - 4680
of 5,890
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2017, 1:25 am
The biggest legal story of this coming week will be the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union – the Article 50 “Brexit” judgment. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 7:57 am
United States, 14-29, involving a prosecution under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, or the ’34 Act, as we old-timers call it (rescheduled for this Friday’s Conference); and Crews v. [read post]
12 May 2008, 2:37 pm
Barlow, Bill Miller, Nancy Fisher, the law firm of Fieger, Fieger & Johnson, and the J.L. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 8:29 am
City of New York, New York and United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 3:18 pm
(forthcoming) Amicus brief of the American Legion Miller v. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 11:41 am
Heller in the Supreme Court was Parker v. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 4:02 am
We therefore doubt that Smith and Miller extend this far. [read post]
7 Oct 2024, 10:20 am
State Air Resources Board (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 3:18 pm
Paul, which distinguishes past Supreme Court jurisprudence on obscenity, including the Miller v. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 12:47 pm
As Miller’s ear [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 11:58 am
ADAMS v. [read post]
17 Dec 2017, 3:28 pm
Madden v Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136, S. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 6:00 am
” United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 12:13 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, February 25, 2008 US v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 9:05 pm
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Zen Magnets v. [read post]
24 May 2017, 3:16 am
The Supreme Court of the United States defined what is considered illegal obscenity in what has become known as “the Miller test” from Miller v. [read post]
16 May 2019, 7:55 am
United States, 18-7096. [read post]
11 Sep 2019, 9:18 am
Aurelius Investment, LLC Miller v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 6:07 pm
Florida and Miller v. [read post]
6 Oct 2019, 6:02 am
This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. [read post]
