Search for: "Held v. State" Results 4921 - 4940 of 82,195
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2012, 12:52 pm by David Jacobson
In Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 and appeals relating to 6 other non-executive directors of James Hardie Industries Ltd (“JHIL”) the High Court allowed ASIC’s appeals and held that each director breached his or her duties as a director of the company by approving the company’s release of a misleading announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange (“ASX”). [read post]
1 Jan 2009, 11:26 am
Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), in which the Court held that the "legislative" power of the state under Article I, section 4 was defined by the state's constitution and, therefore, included the governor's veto power). [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:22 am by Liskow & Lewis
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently dismissed the appeal in Comer v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 7:59 am
While interesting to constitutional law scholars and state governments, the Court's decision in Coleman v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 9:10 am by Paul M. Rashkind
P. 52(b)’s plain-error standard for unpreserved claims of error; and held that, although the error had occurred and was obvious, Puckett had not satisfied the third prong of plain-error analysis in that he failed to demonstrate that his ultimate sentence was affected, especially since the judge had found that acceptance-of-responsibility reductions for defendants who continued to engage in criminal activity were so rare as "to be unknown. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 11:45 pm
Via scotusblog: The Court has released the opinion in Hawaii, et al. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 12:42 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Indiana held two bench trials, one on infringementand one on invalidity. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 3:00 am
The day after the Kentucky Supreme Court held oral arguments on two paternity cases as we reported here, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided Brooks v. [read post]
24 Nov 2021, 4:15 am by Howard Friedman
” violated petitioner's rights:The Court considers that, even where the measures taken by the Government did not actually restrict the applicants’ freedom to manifest their beliefs through worship and practice, the hostile terms which the State authorities used to describe their movement may have had negative consequences for them and constitute an interference with their rights under Article 9 § 1 of the Convention.The court also held that the rights of… [read post]
1 Sep 2007, 6:29 am
  The court held -- contrary to the Fifth Circuit in Brown v. [read post]