Search for: "Kerr v. State"
Results 461 - 480
of 1,614
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2016, 10:40 am
Supreme Court In a leapfrog appeal, the Supreme Court, comprising Lady Hale and Lords Kerr, Sumption, Hughes and Toulson, heard submissions on 26 and 27 January 2016. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 7:30 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
12 May 2012, 4:51 am
After two days of argument (spread over three days due to the State Opening of Parliament) judgment was reserved. [read post]
18 Jul 2013, 4:27 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 4:41 pm
In United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 12:58 am
Here’s the abstract: In the Supreme Court’s recent decision on GPS monitoring, United States v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 4:43 pm
He is wrong about the child labor case of Hammer v. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 9:17 am
Second, I will use the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. [read post]
19 Dec 2016, 4:01 am
Kerr McGee argued that the Paragraph 17 formula pertained only to future gas purchase agreements and did not alter the commonly accepted meaning of “market value at the well” as stated in Paragraph 3. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 11:07 am
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, concluding that it was bound by its 2010 decision in United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 1:26 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 8:34 am
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit today issued a very lengthy decision on the latest round of appeals in the case captioned United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 11:41 am
United States, Smith v. [read post]
21 Dec 2015, 4:39 pm
Kerr, Analyst in Nonproliferation, December 17, 2015: “This report reviews the process and procedures that currently apply to congressional consideration of foreign arms sales proposed by the President. [read post]
28 Oct 2009, 4:04 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Jan 2008, 6:36 am
That's Burns v. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 11:09 pm
The case is United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 6:14 pm
(Orin Kerr) “Yes,” says Judge Maurice Paul in United States v. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 10:32 am
The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred by: (1) holding that the warrant to search the defendant's cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, see People v Hughes, 506 Mich 512, 538 (2020); (2) failing to sever any valid portions of the search warrant from any invalid portions, see People v Keller, 479 Mich 467, 479 (2007); (3) holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply, see People v… [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 10:06 am
United States, and Printz v. [read post]
