Search for: "Felts v. State"
Results 481 - 500
of 5,741
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Feb 2011, 7:48 am
Turning to the second question Binnie J reviewed what was then the leading Canadian case on fundamental breach: Hunter Engineering Co. v Syncrude Canada Ltd. [1989] 1 SCR 426. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 11:26 pm
The Sixth Circuit found that the state court decision was contrary to Mathis v. [read post]
6 Sep 2009, 10:43 pm
State v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 5:10 am
I am told that at the hearing, it was stated that the Branham case stood for the principle that if the Legislature did not actively renew a statue after a number of years, the Supreme Court felt it was empowered to overturn statutory authority and to adopt a rule of law directly contrary to the statute. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 6:00 am
The district court agreed with the State's contention, but felt bound to rule otherwise in light of a case decided in 1980 by this court. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 11:53 am
State v. [read post]
12 May 2017, 1:33 pm
” (Boasberg did not mention McWilliams v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 1:30 pm
In United States v. [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 6:06 am
State v. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 9:01 pm
While there is a so-called “political question” doctrine, first established in Luther v. [read post]
25 Jul 2013, 10:35 am
By Eric Goldman Gavra v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 4:00 am
In State of North Carolina v. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 9:14 am
In EEOC v. [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 10:02 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
30 May 2016, 8:04 am
., state prison vs. county jail). [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm
The standard the City urged for reviewing a facial challenge used language from United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 7:23 am
International Justice, Wild West v. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 9:47 am
In US v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 8:36 pm
In the recent decision, Gent v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 12:08 pm
Café Concerto Ltd. v New York State Liquor Authority In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioner appealed a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority which imposed a civil penalty for the violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65(1) and State Liquor Authority Rule 54.2. [read post]
