Search for: "State v. Betters" Results 41 - 60 of 23,273
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2021, 4:44 am by Katy Sheridan
The Secretary of State maintained that the Supreme Court decisions in R (Unison) v. [read post]
7 Nov 2020, 8:18 am by Eric Goldman
Oct. 19, 2020) The post If You Want an Enforceable Online Contract, You Better Keep a Good Chain of Evidence–Snow v. [read post]
14 May 2014, 2:06 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
For judgment, please download: [2014] UKSC 28 For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII The post New Judgment: R (George) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] UKSC 28 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
30 Nov 2014, 7:30 am by Gene Quinn
This seemed to culminate in the 1998 ruling of the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2021, 7:52 am by Jonathan H. Adler
[The bill cuts health care funding in states that refused to accept the ACA's Medicaid expansion in ways that might violate NFIB v. [read post]
9 Oct 2007, 4:31 am
As a consequence, for now the Court leaves intact the state secrets doctrine of United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am by Peter Groves
As neither of the third parties had dealt with the Secretary of State, the claim could only succeed if the court said that the dealing requirement did not form part of the ratio of OBG or departed from that case (which, incidentally, was one of three cases dealt with together by the House of Lords, one of the others being better-known to IP lawyers: Douglas v Hello!). [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 2:42 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
For judgment, please download: [2014] UKSC 6 For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII The post New Judgment: IA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 6 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 1:57 pm by Paul Ohm
E.g., Smith, 442 U.S., at 742; United States v. [read post]