Search for: "State v. House" Results 5881 - 5900 of 28,800
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jun 2020, 1:28 pm
(See Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here, and Part V here.)The reason for its inability is that both the Constitution (Art. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 1:28 pm
(See Part I here, Part II here, Part III here, Part IV here, and Part V here.)The reason for its inability is that both the Constitution (Art. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 3:02 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (on the application of Pathan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12 December 2019. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 5:58 am by CMS
In this case comment, Stephen McNaught, Mark McMurray, Josh Risso-Gill and Gael Hardie, who all work within the planning team at CMS, comment on the decision recently handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Dill v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another [2020] UKSC 20, which concerned “listed buildings”. [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm by Samuel Estreicher and Joseph Scopelitis
Yet it was just a few months ago that disgraced former film producer and Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was found guilty of two of the five charges he faced in New York state court. [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 9:39 am by Roger Parloff
In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 3:55 am by Edith Roberts
” At the Duke Center for Firearms Law’s Second Thoughts blog, Jake Charles looks at Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent “from the Supreme Court’s per curiam decision dismissing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 11:31 am by Josh Blackman
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] Recently, the Supreme Court decided Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. [read post]
10 Jun 2020, 8:38 am by John Elwood
United States, 19-7320, a sequel to Stokeling v. [read post]
If the latter, then this may be contrasted with the approach taken by Pumfrey J in Abbott v Ranbaxy [2004] where he stated that had he not granted summary judgment on validity grounds, he would have granted a preliminary injunction. [read post]