Search for: "Parker v. State" Results 661 - 680 of 1,756
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Oct 2015, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
Fischer has used his radio show to promote outrageous, denigrating claims about LGBT people, Muslims, Native Americans and African Americans.In the interview, Parker not only discussed a marriage equality case pending before the Alabama Supreme Court – Ex parte State v. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
Parker Distinguished Professor of LawUniversity of North Carolina–Chapel HillAuthor, Reparations: Pro and Con (2006) and Reconstructing the Dreamland (2002)  [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 9:30 am by Lyle Denniston
  That 1872 ruling, in the case of United States v. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 2:07 pm
She had previously dissented in the 2007 case which ruled the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional, Parker v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 1:00 am by Ryan Dolby-Stevens, Olswang LLP
In the Court of Appeal, the court considered the development of the case law, especially the recent cases of Murray v Leisureplay Plc [2005] EWCA Civ 963 and El Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV [2013] EWCA Civ 1539, stating (per Lord Justice Moore-Bick at paragraph 21): “[T]he modern cases thus appear to accept that a clause providing for payment on a breach of a sum of money that exceeds the amount that a court would award as compensation…may not be… [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 9:30 pm by Seth Kreimer
You will recall that in Spiderman the movie, Uncle Ben informs Peter Parker that “with great power comes great responsibility. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 5:57 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Here: US Cert Opp Brief Cert petition and link to lower court materials here. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 10:41 pm by Patricia Salkin
CPM Trust v City of Plano, 461 S.W. 3d 661 (TX App. 4/7/2015)Filed under: Current Caselaw, Non-Conforming Uses, sign, Signs, Takings [read post]
11 Aug 2015, 7:35 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
He loses the case, and the Court of Appeals affirms.The case is Smith v. [read post]