Search for: "State v. E. W. B."
Results 521 - 540
of 2,208
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2020, 5:34 pm
In other words, "the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'" Id. at 627 (quoting United States v. [read post]
9 Feb 2020, 4:05 pm
Last Week in the Courts On 4 to 7 February 2020 Warby J heard the trial in the case of Sube v News Group Newspapers. [read post]
5 Feb 2020, 4:55 am
Grendell, and joined by Judge Cynthia W. [read post]
17 Jan 2020, 3:53 am
At Reason, Damon Root writes that although “[e]arlier this month, 207 members of Congress … filed a friend of the court brief [in June Medical Services v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 12:16 pm
One judge, Harry E. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 6:52 am
[B.] [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 8:18 am
Berkey and Scott W. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 5:00 am
Judge Matthew W. [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 5:45 am
Supreme Court’s Wayfair v. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 1:19 pm
[W]e also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI’s decision to use CHSs [Confidential Human Sources] or UCEs [Undercover employees] to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (xvii). [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
W (b) Dissuasiveness The Court noted that the circumvention costs, even if minimal, “may have a dissuasive or deterrent effect”. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 2:10 pm
Appeal of district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to enter judgment on PJC was not properly before Court of Appeals State v. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 10:43 am
Dinwoodie: state of law or practice? [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 3:53 pm
State v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 7:52 am
Oct. 29, 2019.)Laws of 2019, Ch 491, effective January 15, 2020, amended Domestic Relations Law §112 and Public Health Law The public health law was amended by adding a new section, § 4138-e. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 7:37 am
”) State v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 2:30 am
Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
27 Nov 2019, 8:11 am
In June of this year, the Supreme Court granted Banister’s petition for certiorari, reframing the questions presented in his (pro se) petition as “[w]hether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 1:43 pm
Yellowpages Photos, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 10:55 am
§ 47524(c)(1)(B) and (E). [read post]
