Search for: "YOUNGS v. CASE"
Results 621 - 640
of 9,254
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2016, 2:41 am
They have young children. [read post]
12 May 2016, 2:51 pm
He was overstating the case, of course, for comedic (by lawyer standards anyway) effect. [read post]
7 Dec 2010, 10:24 am
You'd think it was an easy case. [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 4:53 pm
In the case of Hermida v. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 8:28 am
In the case Parr v. [read post]
21 Jun 2022, 9:48 am
Way back in 1996, my wife Nicole Stelle Garnett was a young lawyer with the scrappy crew at the Institute for Justice, and participated in a challenge to the Maine tuitioning program that the Supreme Court just (finally) ruled against today in Carson v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 4:12 pm
On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court decided United States v. [read post]
12 May 2016, 12:30 pm
On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments inUnited States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 3:08 pm
State v. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 9:32 am
Young v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 2:25 pm
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Department of Agriculture and Michigan Apple Committee v. [read post]
29 May 2013, 7:42 am
In the past few months, a Maryland case (Maryland v. [read post]
29 May 2013, 7:42 am
In the past few months, a Maryland case (Maryland v. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 6:31 am
The Tenth Circuit last week decided Cressman v. [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 1:32 am
In fact, however, there are several other cases that are as signifant or more important where discretionary review or rehearing has been sought, so are not final ( Smith v. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 12:22 pm
Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 9:29 am
In Stephens v. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 9:49 am
In the case, Coterel v. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 1:17 am
8Circuit.png In trial for the production, distribution and possession of child pornography, affirming exclusion of defense expert testimony that the defendant "was not a pedophile and was not sexually attracted to young girls" to explain his "motive for taking the photographs" as irrelevant to the issue of the "sexual character" of the images, in United States v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:44 am
Not since R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (where foreign nationals were required to obtain the Secretary of State’s permission to get married) has there been such an obvious case of a disproportionate immigration measure. [read post]
