Search for: "Force v. WATKINS"
Results 61 - 80
of 131
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2017, 11:49 am
” Miranda v. [read post]
26 May 2017, 5:08 am
Reid Wilson reports for The Hill that Cooper v. [read post]
13 Dec 2016, 6:03 am
This is Part II of my discussion of Dancy v. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 9:51 am
" Utah v. [read post]
3 Dec 2016, 7:00 am
William Fenrick reviewed Kenneth Watkin’s Fighting at the Legal Boundaries: Controlling the Use of Force in Contemporary Conflict. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 12:22 pm
In today’s case (Watkins v. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 6:48 am
On February 12, 2013, he, along with other Effingham police officers and an investigator with the Illinois State Police Drug Task Force, executed a `controlled buy’ operation wherein a confidential informant would purchase cocaine from Isaih Garcia. [read post]
28 Jul 2016, 12:40 pm
” (Physicians for Human Rights v. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 5:00 am
" Using equity to consummate the merger would force ETE to accept the potential tax risk without the comfort of a tax opinion from Latham. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 7:32 pm
” Citing Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2016, 6:34 am
Last week, in Al Razak v. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 10:16 am
” Watkins v. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 9:17 am
Kenneth Watkin (formerly, Canadian Forces) has published Fighting at the Legal Boundaries: Controlling the Use of Force in Contemporary Conflict (Oxford Univ. [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 5:23 pm
Seat, 172 Tenn. 618, 113 S.W.2d 751; Watkins v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 3:00 am
The SLB also touches on the Rule 14a-8(i)(7) litigation playing out in Trinity Wall Street v. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 7:21 am
That was the question before the Justices as the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 6:33 pm
Seat, 172 Tenn. 618, 113 S.W.2d 751; Watkins v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 6:10 am
Watkins v. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 3:35 pm
The issue is one of control: unlike the civil litigation context, the congressional forum is one in which you are likely to be buffeted by forces that are largely beyond your control. [read post]
26 May 2015, 4:16 am
” Ludecke v. [read post]
