Search for: "Riley v State"
Results 581 - 600
of 1,057
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Dec 2013, 8:01 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 5:19 am
See Larkin v. [read post]
27 Jun 2021, 3:52 pm
The Court of Appeals characterized the zoning ordinance proceeding as quasi-criminal given the state powers intersecting with private property. [read post]
27 Jan 2025, 3:09 pm
In 2015, the FBI intended to execute a no-knock warrant at the home of a gang member, Joseph Riley. [read post]
7 May 2023, 5:55 am
Shields and United States v. [read post]
24 Aug 2007, 9:05 am
State, a NFP issued June 21, 2007, where Judge Riley concludes:Here, Hunter admits to violating his probation, but nonetheless argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his entire suspended sentence. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 9:05 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Stephen Jack v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 12:20 pm
” Riley v. [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 3:28 pm
Munson Co. (1984), and Riley v. [read post]
1 Apr 2019, 2:58 am
Brunetti] Could someone remind the President of the United States that there’s no law against making fun of him on TV? [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 5:00 am
In the case of Heagy v. [read post]
5 Jul 2014, 10:21 am
David Simpson, a small-l libertarian Republican Texas state rep from Longview, authored an Independence Day column in his local paper opining that the US Supreme Court's recent ruling in Riley v. [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 12:00 am
In the London Review of Books, but behind a paywall, are a review of Entick v. [read post]
23 Dec 2016, 3:44 am
Patty’s Original Cheese Zombies, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2007, 4:23 am
A spokeswoman for the governor said Wednesday afternoon that Riley would not stop the execution. [read post]
19 Apr 2009, 6:00 am
LEXIS 28499 (CD CA, April 2, 2009), a California federal magistrate judge dismissed, but allowed the filing of an amended complaint, by a Muslim inmate who claims his fre exercise rights were violated when he was denied a Halal diet.In Riley v. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 11:34 am
United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 10:18 pm
Md.).The court concluded that the law does not regulate commercial speech (correct, I think, since it applies to organizations that provide free counseling as well as those that sell products or services), that it is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in preventing fraud (also correct, I think, especially in light of cases such as Riley v. [read post]
4 May 2012, 2:00 am
This was an issue in Parker v. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 11:31 am
Nothing in the statute suggests that the preemption analysis somehow depends on how the device is used.Caplinger, 921 F.Supp.2d at 1219 (quoting Riley v. [read post]
