Search for: "People v. Millette"
Results 41 - 60
of 60
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2016, 8:30 am
The first two articles are from quite possibly the most authoritative people who could speak about the Yearbook—i.e., the President and Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 2:07 pm
Chicago and NRA v. [read post]
13 May 2015, 10:46 am
” Justice Garland recalled the Court’s precedent in “NBC v. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 12:21 pm
Judge Millett brought up the possibility that Koch had a mixed motive: He wanted to induce people into the market as he argued, but his trading strategy would also have the benefit of placating his clients by increasing their account balances. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 1:55 pm
v=w8ydBekmEOw [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 7:53 am
She added that tens of thousands of people had been rejected from the registration rolls because of the Arizona law, though there was no evidence that they were not citizens. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 11:35 am
Justice Department event marking the 50th anniversary of the high court's landmark Gideon v. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 9:19 am
Lord Millett said: “In both ordinary and literary usage, residential accommodation is ‘a dwelling’ if it is the occupier’s home… But his home is not the less his home because he does not cook there but prefers to eat out or bring in ready-cooked meals. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 9:19 am
Lord Millett said: “In both ordinary and literary usage, residential accommodation is ‘a dwelling’ if it is the occupier’s home… But his home is not the less his home because he does not cook there but prefers to eat out or bring in ready-cooked meals. [read post]
25 May 2012, 7:33 am
Marbury v. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 12:05 pm
Millett, that “the two should go pari passu, as we say, that if you can be sued for acting under color of law you ought to have the defenses that people who were acting with legal authority have? [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 1:27 pm
Id. at *5-6 (citing Weedon v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 12:04 pm
Not one of three lawyers who argued in Samantar v. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 12:00 am
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday in United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 6:11 am
Biskupic breaks down the arguments of the two sides: the Solicitor General will defend the law as “designed to prevent people from profiting from the unlawful torture and killing of animals,” while Patricia Millett frames Stevens’ argument around the question of “whether the government can send an individual to jail for up to five years just for making films â€â [read post]
20 Aug 2009, 9:36 am
In Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets [2003] 2 AC 430, Lords Bingham and Millett had made pretty scathing comments on the lawfulness of contracting out the review function – Lord Bingham (at [10]) had “very considerable doubts” whether it was a function; and Lord Millett agreeing pointed out that the SI was “concerned in very general terms with deregulation and the subcontracting of ordinary local authority functions”… [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 1:32 pm
Check the U.S. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2008, 10:58 am
" Earlier coverage of Snyder v. [read post]
20 Mar 2007, 5:41 am
Millett will argue on behalf of the United States as an amicus in support of California. [read post]
15 Jun 2006, 4:45 am
Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 101 F.3d 239, 242 (2nd Cir. 1996); Al-Adsani v. [read post]
