Search for: "State v. Means" Results 621 - 640 of 61,159
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Nov 2018, 2:48 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The Supreme Court held that “financially independent” in s 117B(3) means “not financially dependent upon the state”. [read post]
10 May 2022, 11:00 am by The Petrie-Flom Center Staff
The post Adoption and the Meaning of Consent appeared first on Bill of Health. [read post]
7 Jan 2022, 2:00 am by mes286
Quinney College of Law and Sam Sutton, Deputy District Attorney, Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office, present a webinar today, to discuss the Utah Supreme Court Case State v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 12:07 am by INFORRM
Whilst the courts were slow to interfere in the executive’s assessment of whether there was a public emergency threatening the life of the nation in the Belmarsh case (A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 68), and accorded the Secretary of State’s assessment “great weight”, it did actually perform a review of that assessment, albeit granting the executive a wide discretionary area of judgement. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 6:58 pm by Steven Calabresi
 Even Alexander Hamilton, himself, said in his brief for the United States in Hylton v. [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 6:32 am by Elizabeth McCuskey
The Supreme Court opened its January session Monday morning with argument in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2010, 2:11 pm by Scott W Lawrence
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON No. 81279-9 (consolidated) CITY OF SEATTLE v. [read post]
7 Mar 2023, 5:40 am by Neil Wilkof
(“Twitter”) won a publicised trade mark opposition action against a Singapore-founded tech start-up, V V Technology Pte Ltd (“V V”). [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 7:10 am
Here is the abstract: On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 2:39 pm
In United States v.Conrad Clinton Blair, No. 12-4427, the Court rejects an expansive reading of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Descamps v. [read post]