Search for: "FAIR v. THE STATE" Results 5061 - 5080 of 30,480
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2020, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Almost invariably such cases will engage ECHR Article 8 (privacy, personality) and Article 10  (freedom of expression) rights, whilst any legal proceedings will engage Article 6 (fair trial). [read post]
28 Dec 2020, 9:01 pm by Samuel Estreicher and Samantha Zipper
”The Ninth Circuit also indirectly discussed the issue at hand in Fair Housing Council v Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008). [read post]
The rights of third-country nationals migrating to the EU have largely been constructed under the terms of Part Three, Title V, Chapter 3 TFEU, particularly arts 78-79 thereof. [read post]
27 Dec 2020, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
Elgizouli v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 2 WLR 857 The case concerns the UK’s stance on the application of mutual legal assistance to the United States where doing so may result in the death penalty being carried out. [read post]
25 Dec 2020, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Which, per the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, is fair play under the U.S. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 10:49 am by Sean Vanderfluit
Of note, at the outset of its analysis, the BCCA stated that in cases that did not involve final determination of a case that originated before the SCC issued Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 8:01 am by Dan Bressler
And earlier this year, on February 13, 2020, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals essentially made the same finding in Diamond v. [read post]
22 Dec 2020, 5:18 am by Stefanie Jackman and Rene T. McNulty
  The Bureau reasoned that §1006.26(b) uses the term “legal action” and noted in Midland Funding, LLC v. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 10:00 pm by Chijioke Okorie
These notices must state the reasons for each party’s belief that the dispute is or is not capable of being mediated. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 11:56 am by Phil Dixon
(1) Despite the State’s repeated use of “moped” to describe the defendant’s vehicle, sufficient evidence existed to establish that the defendant’s vehicle met the statutory definition of “motor vehicle”; (2) New trial required where trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the definition of “motor vehicle” State v. [read post]