Search for: "State v. Character" Results 5201 - 5220 of 7,506
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2012, 8:12 pm by D. Todd Smith
The case is Rio Grande Regional Hospital Inc. and Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare L.P. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 8:12 pm by D. Todd Smith
The case is Rio Grande Regional Hospital Inc. and Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare L.P. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 11:23 am by Neil Cahn
To begin, in its December 8, 2011 decision in Kirshy-Stallworth v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 12:00 am by INFORRM
The only available guidance derives from DPP v Collins ([2006] UKHL 40), an appeal from the Divisional Court. [read post]
5 Feb 2012, 11:55 am by Benjamin Wittes
Department of State, has the following analysis of the International Court of Justice’s decision Friday in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 4:05 pm by Blogspot
No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour; Paragraph 3 a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court; For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:Any work or service, not referred to in subparagraph b), normally required of a person who is under detention… [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 1:52 am
Since both the United States and India are federations, invariably the Superior Courts in those jurisdictions are called on to decide when there appears to be any conflict between state and federal legislation or a question of legislative competence arises. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 12:28 pm by Susan Brenner
The state or federal magistrate who is being asked to issue the search wa [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 8:41 am by 1 Crown Office Row
Coogan and Philips v News Group Newspapers [2012] EWCA Civ 48 -read judgment The Court of Appeal today dismissed Mr Glenn Mulcaire’s appeal against an order that he provide information to claimants in the phone hacking litigation. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 6:18 am by INFORRM
Conversely, he found that the provisions in question were “piecemeal” and “arbitrary” and operate in wholly different contexts. [28] He expressed the provisional view that this expression meant confidential information which is technical or commercial in character. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 2:17 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Hence, as Justice O'Connor put it in her concurrence in McCreary County, Ky. v. [read post]