Search for: "Guise v. State"
Results 621 - 640
of 1,003
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Aug 2013, 3:11 pm
In GST v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:10 am
Penn State Law, Course Descriptions. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 9:01 pm
Said and United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 11:42 am
McCutcheon v. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 3:24 pm
On his own various sites, internet radio shows, and twitter feeds, conducted under various handles and names and guises, he has railed at real and imagined enemies. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
6 Jul 2013, 12:39 pm
In my previous post I published the dissenting views of Commissioner Pinkert, one of the six chiefs of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC), from the majority decision granting Samsung (unless vetoed by the United States Trade Representative or reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) an exclusion order against older iPhones and iPads. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 11:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 7:00 am
Corp. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 1:26 pm
Farrant – that is, Athey's material contributing to injury in the guise of but-for as a “substantial connection” – still lives in British Columbia, even after Clements. [read post]
1 Jun 2013, 7:19 am
If Java apps don't run on Android, they have the chutzpah to call this state of affairs "interoperability". [read post]
24 May 2013, 5:00 am
We’ve read Kaiser v. [read post]
13 May 2013, 7:18 am
State v. [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:29 am
Crews points to case law from Bridgeman Art Library v. [read post]
1 May 2013, 10:28 am
from Versata v. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 1:53 pm
In April 2011, the United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 10:31 pm
By David RangavizState v. [read post]
