Search for: "Branch v. State"
Results 4981 - 5000
of 8,123
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2019, 4:38 pm
Courts of Appeal after Blakely v. [read post]
9 Nov 2021, 1:23 pm
The case, United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 8:21 am
Verrilli Jr. told the court that the case, Leal Garcia v. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 7:53 am
The decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
9 Apr 2008, 11:00 pm
Most immediately, that future includes a date with the Supreme Court [on April 16th presenting an amicus argument in Kennedy v. [read post]
25 Jul 2010, 4:00 am
State Department, which appeared in the Department's Bulletin:For the first time in history, restitution may be expected to continue for as long as works of art known to have been plundered during a war continue to be rediscovered.The executive branch has not deviated from this position to date. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 4:33 pm
In the 2008 Supreme Court case Medellin v. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 4:00 am
International Energy Group Limited v Zurich Insurance PLC UK Branch [2013] EWCA Civ 39 – granted on 29 July 2013 by Lord Mance, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 5:16 am
Hacon HHJ set out that he did not believe that Parliament had intended for the defence provided to allow parties to carry on as they had prior to the 1994 Act, rather than allowing infringers to branch out into new uses of signs which since became the exclusive right of the trade mark proprietor. [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 4:14 pm
In Salzberg v. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 6:48 am
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said in its 2009 United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 6:30 am
It was not until 2017—more than two decades after United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 3:32 pm
Rather than go this route, which could spill over into judicial intrusion on prerogatives of the political branches, Roberts applied a more deferential rational-basis test. [read post]
24 Feb 2022, 5:01 am
In McGrain v. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 3:29 am
While the Supreme Court’s recent holding in NLRB v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 8:15 am
” DOD reasoned that compliance with a 30 days’ notice requirement “in these circumstances would have “‘prevent[ed] the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions,’ Morrison v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 11:05 am
I ultimately did not answer this question, but said the question was open under Walter Nixon v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 2:43 pm
[The decision in Bostock v. [read post]
23 May 2019, 7:08 am
The analysis is lengthy, so I will state my main conclusions here: None of the critics defends the report’s actual reasoning, which is pretty obviously flawed. [read post]
26 Aug 2021, 7:55 pm
" United States Forest Service v. [read post]
