Search for: "STATE, EX REL. v. Barnes"
Results 41 - 60
of 67
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Mar 2022, 10:34 am
And perhaps Kwass should no longer be relied on, given its stress on the distinction between law and equity, see, e.g., 81 S.E.2d at 243-46—a distinction abolished in West Virginia in 1960, State ex rel. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 5:32 am
Minnesota ex rel. [read post]
29 May 2015, 2:24 pm
Barnes, 14-395, is a state-on-top habeas case involving jurors in separate criminal cases who received religious advice on the death penalty from third parties. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 9:48 am
State ex rel. 14th Dist. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 8:52 am
Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.) to a state agency’s proprietary acts with respect to a state-owned and funded rail line or is CEQA not preempted in such circumstances under the market participant doctrine (see Town of Atherton v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:00 pm
Barnes 14-395Issue: Whether the Fourth Circuit contravened 28 U.S.C. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 8:13 pm
It is not possible if the oil is ignited, and burns the plaintiff’s barn. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 1:08 pm
Barnes, 14-395, follows close behind with six relists. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 12:13 pm
Barnes, 14-395, is close behind with five relists. [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 9:02 am
” Giles v. [read post]
17 Nov 2023, 3:00 am
Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 5:38 am
Sweatt’s petition, together with two other law school cases—Missouri ex rel. [read post]
27 Feb 2007, 1:36 pm
" The case was Wheeler v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm
Jeffries Homes Housing Project, 306 Mich 638, 647-48; 11 NW2d 272 (1943); Grand Rapids Bd of Ed v Baczewski, 340 Mich 265, 270-71; 65 NW2d 810 (1954); Dep’t of Conservation v Connor, 316 Mich 565, 576-78; 25 NW2d 619 (1947). 9 See Chicago, Detroit, etc v Jacobs, 225 Mich 677; 196 NW 621 (1924); Michigan Air Line Ry v Barnes, 44 Mich 222; 6 NW 651 (1880); Toledo, etc R Co v Dunlap, 47 Mich 456; 11 NW 271 (1882); Detroit, etc R Co… [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 7:32 am
Barnes, 14-395, a state-on-top habeas case involving jurors who received third-party religious advice on the death penalty, asks whether “the Fourth Circuit contravene[d] § 2254 (d)(1) when it granted habeas relief on the ground that the North Carolina state courts unreasonably applied ‘clearly established’ law when they held that third-party religious discussions with jurors did not concern ‘the matter[s] pending before the jury[.] [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 1:38 am
The following chart shows the duration (number of months on the X axis) of eight disputes (with separate bars for the U.S. and ex-U.S. parts of Apple v. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 12:18 pm
Perhaps, then, Kwass should no longer be relied on, given its stress on the distinction between law and equity, see, e.g., 81 S.E.2d at 243-46—a distinction abolished in West Virginia in 1960, State ex rel. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 6:51 pm
" Mordenti v. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 5:18 pm
State of California ex rel 14th District Agricultural Association (3d Dist. 3/26/14) ___ Cal.App.4th ____, ___Cal.Rptr.3d ____, 2014 WL 1232608. [read post]
31 Mar 2024, 9:44 am
” Cavitt v. [read post]
