Search for: "Cross v. Powers"
Results 541 - 560
of 4,835
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Oct 2010, 6:27 pm
Co. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 8:10 am
In that case, Gonzales v. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 2:09 pm
The case, Hernandez v. [read post]
A guide to interpreting the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 without driving yourself crazy
22 Mar 2020, 9:24 am
Cross references: ss. 704, 1106 11 USC s. 1184: A short explanation of the rights and powers of a debtor in possession. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 7:10 pm
” United States v. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 8:47 am
Fisher v. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 10:24 am
Information and Privacy Commissioner et al v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 8:59 am
-M. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 2:28 am
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the claimants’ cross-appeal and lifted the stay. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 7:41 am
Reg. 25,162 (May 12, 2005). [3] EPA, Clean Air Interstate Rule: Basic Information, http://www.epa.gov/cair/basic.html (last visited July 16, 2010). [4] North Carolina v. [read post]
15 Nov 2006, 5:48 am
Per Papineau v. [read post]
28 Jan 2021, 10:23 am
Reisch argued that her blocking power was conferred by Twitter and not some officially endorsed action, so it was not state action. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 9:24 pm
[Did she cross the line?] [read post]
12 Sep 2007, 8:48 am
After the 1983 INS v. [read post]
21 Oct 2016, 3:00 pm
U.S. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 8:15 am
These include the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hassan v UK (2014) which read certain detention powers into the ECHR, the UK Supreme Court judgment in Al Waheed v Ministry of Defence (2017), which extended the same logic to detention allegedly authorized by the Security Council, and the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 35 (2014), which addressed security detention and immigration detention. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 12:01 pm
No. 2 v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 2:27 pm
TVA v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 1:18 am
Therefore, the power has to be construed narrowly and strictly. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 6:06 pm
As this Court stated over 20 years ago, "[o]n numerous occasions, we have forcefully condemned prosecutorial cross-examination which compels a defendant to state that witnesses lied in their testimony" (People v Eldridge, 151 AD2d 966, 966, lv denied 74 NY2d 808). [read post]
