Search for: "Strong v. State"
Results 6401 - 6420
of 16,398
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2017, 2:30 pm
That said, a close examination of the general legal and policy landscape yields a strong argument that the attorney general is not categorically obliged to provide Trump any and all foreign intelligence-related information that he requests. [read post]
5 Mar 2017, 12:19 pm
” In the notorious case of Kelo v. [read post]
4 Mar 2017, 4:34 pm
”[10] In other cases, though, ethical principles should limit non-consensual publication to cases where public interest is strong – meaning matters relating to official actions rather than personal matters – and where privacy interests are not significantly harmed. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 9:30 am
” And finally, on January 20, 2017, in apparent accordance with Article II, Section I, Clause 8, “Before he enter[ed] on the execution of his office, he [took] the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear . . . that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 6:34 am
El Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos determinó en Employment Division v. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 8:44 pm
In United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 5:15 pm
Kalinski The California Supreme Court today reversed the Court of Appeal in City of San Jose v. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 5:35 pm
Signs for Jesus v. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 2:33 pm
Justice Kennedy with opinion in Bethune-Hill v. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 9:36 am
See Southeastern Promotions v. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 6:36 am
Furthermore, while the trial court clearly erred in instructing the jury on state of mind, the error did not “seriously impair” the integrity of the proceedings (U.S. v. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 3:35 am
United States. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 9:01 pm
This is particularly so given the Supreme Court’s holding in 1989 in Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 4:17 pm
Applying the reasoning used by the Court of Appeal in Vidal-Hall v Google ([2016] QB 1003) there is a strong argument that section 32(4) should be disapplied pursuant to article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the grounds that it conflicts with the rights guaranteed by the Charter, namely the right to respect for private and family life under Article 7 and the right to protection of personal data under Article 8. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 10:00 am
Yet without a sufficiently strong and capable military, civil society becomes vulnerable to attack, and the former might not be able to defend the latter. [read post]
27 Feb 2017, 7:31 am
State v. [read post]
26 Feb 2017, 9:30 pm
In a recent case, San Francisco v. [read post]
25 Feb 2017, 3:16 pm
The recent case is State v. [read post]
25 Feb 2017, 8:14 am
Hepburn v. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 3:37 pm
Interestingly, however, Blacklock’s instead chose to appeal the $65,000 costs award in which Judge Barnes stated:[7] …I also reject the Plaintiff's argument that this case raised "strong public interest considerations". [read post]
