Search for: "State v. So "
Results 5961 - 5980
of 116,389
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Nov 2016, 6:48 am
State v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 10:39 am
Blake v. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 5:00 am
I say appear to contradict since a panel court cannot overrule prior holdings by the same court, so we are left with a state of tension between the holdings in Cariou and Authors Guild. [read post]
30 Mar 2011, 3:38 am
State v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 10:01 am
The "alibi" witness had not provided a specific date or event, so her testimony did not directly conflict with the testimony provided by the State. [read post]
22 Jul 2024, 9:31 am
So, here, when it's (now) pretty clear that California courts would hold X, a Ninth Circuit panel applying state law can hold X even though prior circuit precedent has held Y.So far, so good. [read post]
2 May 2016, 5:10 pm
Facts of the Case In Bayless v. [read post]
14 Aug 2023, 8:15 am
BONUS 3: Reeves v. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 8:25 am
In its appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Indiana v. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 10:28 am
Corp. v. [read post]
7 Sep 2023, 7:32 am
If so, why doesn't the majority say so? [read post]
14 May 2011, 1:51 am
Last week’s decision of Sharp J in MJN v News Group Newspapers Limited [2011] EWHC 1192 shares some similarities with cases that have caused so much uproar recently, in that it concerns an injunction prohibiting identification of a married premiership footballer who has been having an affair. [read post]
1 Feb 2006, 10:09 am
Opinio Juris notes here that (T)he United States Tax Court ruled this week in Arnett v. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 12:40 pm
Doing so could render Henry a watershed case regarding the criminalization of poverty in Massachusetts and beyond. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 1:05 am
Lord Hughes states that the acid test should be whether the application is in substance (impermissibly) to vary or alter the final order or whether it is (permissibly) to support it by working out how it should be carried into effect [54]. [read post]
13 Dec 2009, 3:22 pm
Taking into consideration the cases of A v United Kingdom (3455/05) (2009) 49 EHRR 29 ECHR (Grand Chamber) and Secretary of State for the Home Department v F (2009) UKHL 28, (2009) 3 WLR 74, the claimants’ arguments on this point were upheld. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 10:45 am
On March 21, 2017, our Supreme Court decided JI v. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 12:35 pm
So, put simply, as all participants seek to comply with Jordan and its principles, let us keep R. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 9:17 am
June Medical Services v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 1:47 am
Summary On 23 June 2016 the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of Manolete Partners plc v Hastings Borough Council. [read post]
