Search for: "In re: Justice v."
Results 5401 - 5420
of 18,136
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Nov 2022, 7:44 am
When Justice Thomas mentioned in passing that he had been a fan of Prince in the 1980s, Justice Kagan quipped: “No longer? [read post]
26 Nov 2023, 10:00 pm
Yet, he was later re-hired. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 6:20 am
There is no way for the public to intelligently advocate for reforms when we're intentionally kept in the dark. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 9:17 pm
Madoff Securities International (in liquidation) v. [read post]
24 Nov 2010, 1:43 am
This judgment was highly material to the issues in the present case and so the parties opted to re-open their hearing, with the claimants submitting that arguments should be heard and judgment delivered in the usual way and the Commissioners asserting that proceedings ought to be adjourned pending any further appeal of the FII Decision.Mr Justice Henderson granted the Commissioners' application to adjourn the proceedings. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 2:06 pm
(In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 787 F.3d, 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom., Czyzewski v. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 2:06 pm
(In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 787 F.3d, 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom., Czyzewski v. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 4:00 am
Harvey v. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 4:34 am
R (AM) v The Director of Public Prosecutions; R (AM) v Director of Public Prosecution; and R (Nicklinson & Anor) v Ministry of Justice, heard 16 – 19 December 2013. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 10:06 am
It's about how to apply the Huawei v. [read post]
30 May 2016, 8:48 am
See United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 9:35 am
In Bowers v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 6:08 am
State v. [read post]
15 Apr 2023, 7:27 pm
A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 8:58 am
The Court also refused to review a new case that might have provided a vehicle for re-examining the so-called “exclusionary rule,” which has come under some sharp criticism among the Justices. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 7:38 am
Justice Kagan pointed out that in a prior case (United States v. $8,850, a 1983 forfeiture case), the Court had ruled that “we’re going to do a due process analysis, but we’re going to take the [Speedy Trial Clause] Barker factors as our test. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 5:20 am
Briefly: At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost weighs in on last week’s decision in Lane v. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 1:07 pm
” Justice Sotomayor’s question was probably based on Weishuhn v. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 4:01 pm
This is the question which the IPKat posed last Friday, on learning that Case C-661/13 Astellas Pharma Inc. v Polpharma SA Pharmaceutical Works, a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of some questions relating to the so-called Bolar exemption, which spares some sorts of use of someone else's patent for experimental purposes from being a patent infringement. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 1:33 pm
(Indian Child Welfare Act, placement)In re A.W. [read post]
