Search for: "Wells v. Justice Court"
Results 4781 - 4800
of 29,128
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2015, 2:52 am
And on June 26, 2013, a divided Court in United States v. [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 12:00 pm
For example, back in June, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 6:25 pm
In addition, Justice Sotomayor was a prosecutor as well, but we find her in the majority in both Stevens and Snyder. [read post]
21 May 2017, 10:00 pm
Kennedy In TC Heartland LLC v. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 2:59 am
The Supreme Court of Canada has issued its decision in Google Inc v Equustek (2017 SCC 34). [read post]
27 Mar 2009, 3:48 pm
However, there is another way to obtain free legal representation.Under section 684 of the Criminal Code, a court may appoint a lawyer to act on behalf of a self-represented party in a criminal appeal where a two-part test is met:it is in the interests of justice that the accused should have legal assistance, and the accused has not sufficient means to obtain that assistance.In deciding if the test is met, the judge will consider the merit of the appeal as well as the… [read post]
20 May 2011, 7:41 am
On May 16, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Schindler Elevator Corp. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm
Google and Twitter v. [read post]
27 May 2010, 12:55 pm
The Court also rejected the City’s argument that Ledbetter v. [read post]
5 Oct 2020, 6:37 am
” Abuse of a dominant position and the CJEU’s judgment in Huawei v ZTE – Huawei argued that the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Huawei v ZTE [2] had laid down a series of mandatory conditions which must be complied with if a SEP owner is to be entitled to obtain injunctive relief so that, if they fail to comply, its claim for an injunction will be regarded as an abuse of its dominant position, contrary to Article… [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:31 pm
(Supreme Court 2016) [LifeTechTranscript] Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in LifeTech v. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 5:21 am
Although the real debate was likely to be about the innuendo meaning, R v Smith (Graham Westgarth) ([2002] EWCA Crim 683, [2003] 1 Cr App R 13) had dealt with what constituted the “making” of an indecent image, R v Smith considered. (3) Even if the pleaded defence was factually contentious and went beyond the statement, there was no need for injunctive relief against the press, whose editors were well aware of the duty not to prejudice criminal trials and of… [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 1:22 pm
The argument in Jesinoski v. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 10:06 am
Brown, Bottini, Wilson v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 7:54 am
Co. v.. [read post]
14 May 2022, 12:29 pm
Pa. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2023, 5:08 am
He is right that there are lay and folk complaints about the shadow docket that are inconsistent or miss the point (perhaps even opportunistic complaints by other Justices as well). [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 9:40 am
Neither side came away with a clear victory in the Court’s decision in Alabama Department of Revenue v. [read post]
24 Mar 2012, 5:01 am
The Supreme Court published opinions in two important cases this week, LAFLER v. [read post]
17 Feb 2023, 12:15 am
While the Fourth District Court of Appeal is not bound to follow the First District Court of Appeal, it is unsettling when a seemingly well-settled precedent is not followed. [read post]
