Search for: "State v. House" Results 5661 - 5680 of 28,800
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jul 2017, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
The basis of the order requiring Facebook to identify TVO was the decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133, [1973] UKHL 6 (26 June 1973); but it “is a power which for good reasons must be sparingly used” (Megaleasing v Barrett (No 2) [1993] ILRM 497, 503 (Finlay CJ). [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 5:05 am by Steve Vladeck
Still, given both the dramatic nature of this particular result (unseating three of the seven sitting state supreme court justices), along with the increasing attention -- thanks at least in part to Justice O'Connor -- being paid to the issues raised by state judicial elections, I wonder if this result may end up being an even bigger story in the long-term than Harry Reid defeating Sharron Angle, or the size of the Republican swing in the House... [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 9:28 am
I’ll be testifying this afternoon before the House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy hearing on “Examining the State of Judicial Recusals After Caperton v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 4:24 pm by Bridget Crawford
Faced with persistent unemployment, a nationwide foreclosure crisis, deep cuts to state and local budgets, and declining state support for public education, Americans are questioning the promise of upward mobility. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 1:30 pm by Steve Vladeck
Among the proposed amendments to the DOD appropriations bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives is this doozy, courtesy of Arkansas Rep. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 10:38 pm by Patricia Salkin
County of Westchester v United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015 WL 5616304 (2nd Cir. 9/25/2015)Filed under: Affordable Housing, Current Caselaw - New York [read post]
1 Jan 2020, 10:38 am by Giles Peaker
First, a quick erratum to yesterday’s post on upcoming housing law. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 5:51 pm
., the Court states that “[t]here is neither a bar nor a presumption against appointing foreign entities to serve as lead plaintiff, particularly where, as here, the defendant is a U.S. company and the foreign entities bought their shares in the United States”, in effect dismissing the res judicata concerns raised by other movants in relation to the appointment of a foreign entity as lead plaintiff. [read post]
9 Aug 2013, 4:55 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) From State v. [read post]