Search for: "State v. N. S." Results 661 - 680 of 20,621
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Oct 2008, 1:57 pm
State Citation: 2008 WY 118 Docket Number: S-08-0010 Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Michael N. [read post]
13 Aug 2008, 3:49 pm
EvidenceProf focused on a different portion of the opinion:The Seventh Circuit's recent opinion in United States v. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 1:10 pm by DMLP Staff
In that context, the court found that the tweet could not reasonably be understood to state actual facts about Feld's mental state. [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 4:19 pm by INFORRM
This principle was reaffirmed in 2016 by the UKSC in R v (on the application of Ingenious Media Holdings) v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2016] UKSC 54 at [17]. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am by Bernard Bell
The Court derived the test’s first prong from “the bedrock requirement that ‘the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right be fairly attributable to the State,’” asserting that “[a]n act is not attributable to a State unless it is traceable to the States power or authority. [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 2:24 pm
First, through the computer wizardry of the No Man, NMCCA's unpublished opinion in United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 6:30 am by Francisco Macías
So begins the Conclusion of the United States District Court, Southern District of California, Central Division in the case of Méndez v. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 1:47 pm by Dennis Crouch
Regis petition focused particularly on Federal Maritime Comm’n v. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 11:08 am
The court further held that this decision was not in conflict with the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 7:40 am by Kevin Johnson
  Justice Kagan cited Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Here is the first report on yesterday's argument in n Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. [read post]