Search for: "State v. Mai X."
Results 581 - 600
of 3,595
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jun 2011, 1:00 pm
ARTICLE V (1) Extradition shall not be granted if: (a) the person sought would, if proceeded against in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested, be entitled to be discharged on the grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction in the territory of the requesting or requested Party or of a third State; or (b) the prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become barred by lapse of time according to the law… [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V (1) Extradition shall not be granted if: (a) the person sought would, if proceeded against in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested, be entitled to be discharged on the grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction in the territory of the requesting or requested Party or of a third State; or (b) the prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become barred by lapse of time according to the law… [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V (1) Extradition shall not be granted if: (a) the person sought would, if proceeded against in the territory of the requested Party for the offense for which his extradition is requested, be entitled to be discharged on the grounds of a previous acquittal or conviction in the territory of the requesting or requested Party or of a third State; or (b) the prosecution for the offense for which extradition is requested has become barred by lapse of time according to the law… [read post]
3 Sep 2020, 4:28 am
The European Commission of Human Rights has already recognised this as art 8 is seen to comprise “the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings” (X v Iceland (1976) 5 DR 86). [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 4:46 am
In this case, X v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2021] EWHC 355 (Fam)), the claimant demanded the recognition by the UK authorities of her child’s adoption in Nigeria. [read post]
13 May 2024, 7:36 am
X Corp. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 11:51 am
That is what happened in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 11:01 am
Thomas 19-1201Issue: Whether a sign regulation containing an exception for on-premises signs, for which both commercial and noncommercial speech may qualify, violates the First Amendment under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Reed v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 8:06 am
App'x 51, 56 (4th Cir.2008); United States v. [read blog]
14 Jan 2021, 11:46 am
See Manfredo v. [read post]
15 Feb 2023, 7:29 pm
By Véronique Li, Senior Medical Device Regulation Expert & Allyson B. [read post]
1 May 2012, 8:33 am
Last week the Court issued its decision in United States v. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 2:29 pm
In Shands Teaching Hospital v. [read post]
26 Nov 2014, 4:21 pm
Comments In the Grand Chamber judgment in Guja v. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 4:39 am
”Under the new rule, acceptable labels (assuming the truth of the statements) are “Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the United States,” “Born in X, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States,” “Born and Raised in X, Slaughtered in the United States,” etc. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 10:08 am
The first, United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 1:15 am
While injunctive relief is not automatic, we are a far way from Ebay v. [read post]
21 Jun 2015, 1:28 pm
” Id.In United States v. [read post]
25 May 2016, 6:04 am
In Marin v. [read post]
10 Apr 2007, 12:39 pm
His first appeal was United States v. [read post]
