Search for: "Matter of Davis v Evans" Results 41 - 60 of 109
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2024, 2:31 am by INFORRM
On Thursday 11 April 2024 there were hearings in the cases of Prospect v Evans KB-2024-00030 and McGee v Lewis KB-2023-002435. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 9:20 am by WSLL
Davis, JudgeRepresenting Appellant (Defendant): David Evans, Richard D. [read post]
31 Aug 2008, 6:01 am
When the Supreme Court granted cert in U.S. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
As already mentioned, on the same day Lord Thomas CJ and Nicola Davies J gave judgment on remedy in the case of HM Attorney-General v Conde Nast Publications Ltd. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 7:34 pm by Richard Hunt
Permanent barriers do violate the ADA no matter how easy they might be to move. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 5:11 pm
BRUCE EVAN FOSTER EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF NILES REID FOSTER; from Ector County; 11th district (11-05-00315-CV, 214 SW3d 106, 12-21-06)2 petitions07-0265 MCKENNA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. [read post]
1 May 2023, 7:46 am by INFORRM
On the same day, Linden J heard the trial of a preliminary issue in the libel case of Evans v McMahon and Kerr J heard an appeal in the case of Samuels v Laycock. [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 6:09 am by Nelson Tebbe
Evans is explicitly rooted in equal protection, which also plays an important role in Lawrence v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
” Yet the Supreme Court, ignoring this rather obvious reality, chose to hold, in Davis v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 12:42 am by INFORRM
On 18 March 2015, Nicola Davies J heard an application in the case of Lachaux v AOL Ltd. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 12:03 am by INFORRM
USA The libel suit against Henry Davis Jr has been dismissed. [read post]
17 Jul 2016, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
Last week in the Courts On 14 July 2016, Nicola Davies J ordered the hearing of a preliminary issue in the case of Baxmann v Etok. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 11:37 pm by Josh Blackman
Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 634 (1996) (“To the extent Davis held that a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote, its holding is not implicated by our decision and is unexceptionable. [read post]