Search for: "Bounds v. State" Results 5121 - 5140 of 9,960
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Oct 2014, 11:39 am
Cl. 2, Amendments IX, X[1]·      German Basic Law, arts.20-25; 31[2]·      Constitution of South Africa, arts. 1, 2, 39, 146-150[3]·      Indiana Code 1-1-2-1[4]·      Hierarchy of Law in Georgia[5]__________Hierarchy of Law in the United StatesConstitution of the United StatesArticle, § 1All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United… [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 2:10 pm
We’ve always been of the opinion that the rationale for preemption in Buckman Co. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 9:12 am
”Id. at 1141-42 (various citations omitted).Courts in other states following this general approach are:  Haygood v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 1:13 pm by Mark Astarita
" Years later the Supreme Court adopted this misreading, in United States v. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 12:30 pm
 "Justice" on a mass scale.The U.S. later seems to get cold feet about the deal it struck, and so at sentencing, it gives the district court a litany of bad facts about Heredia that seemed designed to make sure that Judge Wilson, who's not bound by the plea agreement, doesn't give Heredia the deal that was struck. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 1:16 pm by Dale Carpenter
Under this approach, the Sixth Circuit would consider itself bound by the one-sentence order in 1972’s Baker v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 7:38 am by Wells Bennett
The evidence, according to Lewis, will show that so far, Guantanamo force-feeding practices thoroughly violate legal standards set by the Turner v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 4:55 pm by INFORRM
The media is bound to feel threatened by a tort that might affect their activities, even if the concern is likely to arise more in principle than practice. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 8:59 am
(For an example of a case in which the court did this, see Roto-Die Co. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 6:22 am
  Moreover, the encroachment that did exist was a minor one and in no way rendered the residential premises unfit for habitation.The purchaser was bound to close the transaction and, as a result of his failure to do so, was found liable to pay damages including the decrease in the sale price obtained by the vendor and various carrying costs incurred when the property had to be offered for sale again.Read the decision at: Ganges Kangro Properties Ltd. v. [read post]