Search for: "State v. Waite" Results 4841 - 4860 of 10,778
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Nov 2022, 8:46 am by Amy Howe
And in any event, the state concluded, Johnson waited too long to bring his claims. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 10:17 am by The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
 At that time I asked the judge to enter a finding of not guilty citing to United States v. [read post]
30 May 2023, 11:54 am by Eric Goldman
A decade late, we are still waiting for the case law to answer that question. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 9:39 pm by Heather Douglas
As Justice Brown stated in Bank of Montreal v Faibish, 2014 ONSC 2178, “Why should we be able to expect that treating courts like some kind of fossilized Jurassic Park will enable them to continue to provide a most needed service to the public in a way the public respects? [read post]
31 May 2014, 6:58 am by Lyle Denniston
When the Ninth Circuit panel in January declared the new standard for sexual orientation claims, it found that such a standard was necessary from a between-the-lines reading of the Supreme Court’s decision last June in United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 8:02 am by Chris Castle
 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1989) (misappropriation of Bette Midler’s voice) and Waits v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 10:00 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Additional Resources: Social Security disability pressure eased by budget compromise, October 28, 2015, NOLA, by Mark Schleifstein More Blog Entries:Hanson v. [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 12:01 pm by Giles Peaker
Noting that this was found to be compatible with Art 8 in Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, Sir Alan Ward also notes that in Yordanova v Bulgaria (Application No. 25446/06, dated 24th April 2012) [our note] the ECtHR said: “However, Article 8 does not impose on Contracting States an obligation to tolerate unlawful land occupation indefinitely…”.Therefore:I conclude that the court must approach the claim made by a private landowner… [read post]
26 Aug 2016, 7:26 pm by John A. Gallagher
Cmwlth. 2000) (holding that claimant who quit to return to another state to care for his emotionally disturbed child was eligible for benefits); Miksic v. [read post]