Search for: "State v. Alling" Results 541 - 560 of 115,106
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Sep 2015, 7:30 am by Daily Record Staff
The court sentenced appellant to two years, all but two days suspended, plus two years of probation. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 5:50 am by Daily Record Staff
Criminal procedure — Illegal sentence — Non-life sentence for first-degree murder This appeal involves the State’s motion to correct an illegal sentence after the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County granted Joseph Maurice Ward, appellee’s, petition for post-conviction relief and modified his sentence for first degree murder from a term of life imprisonment with all ... [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 8:21 am by Robbie Stern
In X (South Yorkshire) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2954 (Admin), the Divisional Court declared that the Guidance was unlawful insofar as it did not require the decision maker to consider whether to invite the subject to make representations. [read post]
30 May 2018, 7:19 pm by John Floyd
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in a concurring opinion of United States v. [read post]
The Supreme Court yesterday handed down judgment in TN, MA and AA (Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 40, in which the Court held that a breach of the family tracing duty in Regulation 6 of the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005 does not affect the rule in Ravichandran requiring asylum applications to be decided on the facts existing at the date of decision. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 1:17 am by EMMA FOUBISTER, MATRIX
On 1 November 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal in R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] UKSC 72, relating to whether, in the context of awarding Jobseeker’s Allowance (‘JSA’), the State unjustifiably interfered with the right of transgender persons to have information about their gender reassignment kept private. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 10:32 am by Frank Pasquale
[Abigail] Moncrieff’s brief argues the petitioner’s interpretation of the statute would render the statute unconstitutional under two principles of federalism: that Congress can't coerce states into implementing federal programs, and that all states must be treated equally.As Koppelman notes below, the same states' rights ideas at the core of the conservative win in NFIB v. [read post]