Search for: "CJ v. State" Results 41 - 60 of 509
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2022, 4:20 pm by INFORRM
The effect of s97 is limited to the life of proceedings (Clayton v Clayton [2006] EWCA Civ 878, [2007] 1 FLR 1). [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 6:21 am by Michael C. Dorf
If the federal court plaintiffs lack standing or a cause of action, or if the Court holds that state court judges are not proper party-defendants, or that for injunctive relief to be effective it must--but is not permitted to--run against private non-parties, then the Texas law will remain in effect pending resolution in state court and a possible eventual return to the US Supreme Court posing the question whether a six-week ban is permissible on the merits.For the U.S. and/or the… [read post]
3 Oct 2021, 11:30 pm
  There is a gun case - NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. [read post]
25 Sep 2021, 1:28 pm
 CJ Rehnquist  Burger swears in O'Connor as her husband looks on. [read post]
30 Aug 2021, 6:05 pm by Ray Giblett (AU) and Timothy Chan (AU)
Furthermore, on Allsop CJ’s preferred construction, the words ‘other catastrophe’ in the civil authority extension only referred to an occurrence or event, not a state of affairs. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 4:12 am by Michael Douglas
There were three consequences of this removal: first, Fortnite could not be downloaded to an Apple device; secondly, previously installed iOS versions of Fortnite could not be updated; and, thirdly, Apple device users could not play against players who had the latest version of Fortnite.[22] 4         The Proceedings On the same day as Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, Epic commenced antitrust proceedings in the United States District Court… [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 4:00 am by Deanne Sowter
The words “family violence”, “domestic violence”, “intimate partner violence” and “coercive control” do not appear anywhere in the Federation of Law Societies of Canada Model Code of Professional Conduct. [read post]
20 Oct 2020, 4:10 pm by INFORRM
Giving the judgment of the Divisional Court, Lord Widgery CJ said the following (at p.644): “…all of us concerned in the law know that for more years than any of us can remember it has been a commonplace in blackmail charges for the complainant to be allowed to give his evidence without disclosing his name. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 5:31 am by Joe Consumer
Montana Eighth Judicial District and Ford Motor Company v. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 6:43 am by INFORRM
Balancing competing rights Irish defamation cases are increasingly replete with comments stating the need to balance the constitutional right to freedom of expression with the constitutional right to a good name. [read post]