Search for: "ENGLISH v. STATE"
Results 641 - 660
of 7,356
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2011, 9:00 am
ARTICLE V A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered under the provisions hereof, when, from lapse of time or other lawful cause, according to the laws of either of the surrendering or the demanding country, the criminal is exempt from prosecution or punishment for the offense for which the surrender is asked. [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 8:47 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2007, 5:41 am
State v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 9:46 am
But civil rights groups are also watching another case closely: Shelby County v. [read post]
10 Mar 2012, 6:09 pm
Clearly more is required for a provider to acquire a sufficient state of knowledge to be deprived of the statutory protection” [60]. [read post]
27 May 2008, 8:26 am
MRCO, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 10:46 am
and mens rea (did Twitter have a culpable mental state?) [read post]
10 Feb 2008, 11:01 pm
Hood seemed hopelessly out of his element talking about, well, just about anything you would expect him to know about, but especially the Renfroe v. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 5:23 am
and the Georgia Supreme Court Ling v The State. [read post]
23 Oct 2006, 3:43 am
United Kingdom, at para. 36), whereas conversely, the inability of the police to commit a certain tort in English law (as a point of substantive law) is often described as an ‘immunity’ (see for criticism of this terminology Barrett v. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 10:13 am
While Aerotel placed a large wedge between the EPO Board of Appeals and English courts, recent cases have been bridging the gap, particularly in the area of obviousness in non-software cases (namely, Conor v Angiotech and Actavis v Merck). [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 2:56 am
In addition, this case did not fall within the exceptions contained in Arts 4(2) and (3).This is believed to be the first decision in which the English court has applied Rome II since it came into effect in all EU member states (except Denmark) in January 2009. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 2:56 am
In addition, this case did not fall within the exceptions contained in Arts 4(2) and (3).This is believed to be the first decision in which the English court has applied Rome II since it came into effect in all EU member states (except Denmark) in January 2009. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 6:49 pm
Like Sotomayor, he expressed doubts about whether this case was any different from Washington v. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 2:43 pm
On the one hand, the defendant here probably spoke fairly decent English himself, as evidenced by his ability to answer a few initial questions in English. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 7:29 am
Under this doctrine, states, counties, and cities were immune from suit based on a tradition of English common law referred to as “rex non potest peccare,” which meant “the king can do no wrong. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:32 am
See Mota v. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 2:41 pm
Stanford student Anthony Dick summarizes Monday’s argument in Horne v. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 3:12 am
At the Fed Soc Blog, James Burnham discusses United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 4:00 am
She previously authored The Legal History of the Presidential Management Fellows Program and Hansberry v. [read post]
