Search for: "MATTHEWS v. STATE"
Results 501 - 520
of 3,604
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2008, 2:12 pm
Here's the abstract:To the extent that a state can detain terrorists pursuant to the law of war, how certain must the state be in distinguishing suspected terrorists from nonterrorists? [read post]
8 May 2012, 10:01 pm
In its April 24, 2012 decision in Tishman v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 4:45 am
The taxman prevailed in ETC Marketing v. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 6:17 am
The GEO Group Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 3:57 am
City of Rye v. [read post]
26 Nov 2022, 4:46 am
This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq. [read post]
10 May 2010, 5:39 pm
Matthew L. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 6:28 am
Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., MJMM Investments, LLC, Marc Jablon, Matthew Maguire, Mark C. [read post]
19 May 2010, 5:58 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 1:09 pm
Matthew R. [read post]
1 Apr 2022, 12:10 pm
But what about the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Klaxon Co. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 5:41 pm
As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539: A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament. [read post]
26 Aug 2020, 6:50 pm
City of Portland v Unites States of America, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir CA 8/12/2020) [read post]
1 Jun 2019, 6:00 am
Ashe County v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 8:41 pm
For a wonderful analysis of what the Court did and did not do in Stevens, be sure to catch Matthew Liebman’s post on the Animal Legal Defense Fund Blog, Clarifying the Supreme Court’s United States v. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 4:08 pm
On 12 December 2011 Mr Justice Tugendhat gave judgment on the assessment of damages in three actions by Matthew Cooper and Imaginatik plc (“the Company”) against Mark Turrell ([2011] EWHC 3269 (QB)). [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 5:31 am
(For contemporary illustrations of this point, see the interpretation recently promulgated by Bishop Mark Lawrence, or the statement of Bishop Shaw on gay marriage in his diocese, or the court's decision in the Dixon v. [read post]
24 Aug 2016, 5:50 am
Fletcher, Michigan State University College of Law Matthew L.M. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 5:00 am
At 11 a.m., the Court will hear argument in United States v. [read post]
