Search for: "State v. So"
Results 7321 - 7340
of 117,821
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Sep 2011, 9:27 pm
State v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm
The standard the City urged for reviewing a facial challenge used language from United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 11:00 am
Fowler v. [read post]
3 Jan 2010, 4:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 11:09 am
Gupta v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 6:57 am
In United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2015, 4:07 pm
In a very rare outcome, in the case of R (Davis and ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2015] EWHC 2092 (Admin) the Divisional Court declared that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) is inconsistent with European Union law and therefore is “disapplied”, although the Court suspended the effect of its order until after 31 March 2016. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 12:22 pm
So one frequently-used example comes from the Supreme Court's opinion in Coyle v. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 3:35 am
Kansas don’t need no stinkin’ rule, and in Kahler v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 2:50 pm
According to this notice, the Supreme Court will issue its decision in Perry v. [read post]
8 Dec 2016, 1:30 am
Eadie QC: yes. 15.20 Eadie QC submits that Parliament set up a legislative scheme under the 1972 Act by way that actions by the UK Government and those of other member states flow back to affect member states. [read post]
16 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
Recently, in Cuevas v. [read post]
25 Oct 2017, 5:24 pm
§ 544(b), allowing recovery of a “transfer of an interest of the debtor in property” if state law criteria are met (though the state laws that this statute incorporates generally do refer to a transfer by the debtor). [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 6:40 am
The Supremacy Clause states that federal law has primacy over state law, so that any state law that conflicts with federal law is a nullity. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 4:30 am
Here is the abstract: In Rucho v. [read post]
28 Feb 2021, 7:48 am
Therefore, U.S. state legislatures "may" act to authorize MAID, but they need not do so. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 5:11 pm
As stated in [Hayes v. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 1:58 pm
So, we fixed that. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 8:48 am
In a 4-3 decision, in State v. [read post]
16 Nov 2012, 1:50 pm
So we go to the cases. [read post]
