Search for: "BURNS v. STATE"
Results 41 - 60
of 3,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jan 2024, 3:45 am
McGlynn v Burns & Harris, Esq. 2024 NY Slip Op 00187 Decided on January 17, 2024Appellate Division, Second Department, which we discussed last week, has a secondary issue. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 2:29 pm
(Marko Milanovic, ICJ Indicates Provisional Measures in South Africa v. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 6:16 am
In United States v. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 11:07 am
In addition to turning wastewater into water you can use again, you can also get energy out of that wastewater because there are a lot of chemicals in that wastewater that produce things like methane, which you can actually burn for energy. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 2:40 am
Judge Wendy Beetlestone just denied a critical motion to dismiss in De Piero v. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 8:30 am
Check out Gamboa v. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 5:45 am
The Brandenburg v. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 11:50 am
Planning and Conservation League, et al v. [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 1:22 pm
See Underwager v. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 8:15 am
This doctrine allows a State party to a treaty protecting common legal rights to enforce those rights even if the State is not directly affected by the violation. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 10:56 am
V; Marbury v. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 8:32 am
Serbia and Croatia v. [read post]
1 Jan 2024, 12:32 pm
In most states, the priestly role has been transformed. [read post]
30 Dec 2023, 4:03 am
Ortiz and United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 4:48 pm
Burns (1976), Branti v. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court case, Relentless Inc. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2023, 5:21 am
(Cohen, v. 2, p. 9.) [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 4:41 pm
Today's decision by Magistrate Judge Jill Morris in McClanahan v. [read post]
14 Dec 2023, 6:38 am
In her majority opinion, Justice O’Connor wrote that “while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form. [read post]
