Search for: "Hughes v. Hughes" Results 781 - 800 of 2,709
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Apr 2010, 10:18 am by Meg Martin
The leading federal decision is Tingler v. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 10:18 am by Gabriel Chin
The Supreme Court heard argument on Monday by telephone in Pham v. [read post]
10 Jun 2023, 4:02 pm by Henry P Yang
Following the judgment there was confusion at the Patent Office.Rose Hughes (photo: Neil Graveney)Rose Hughes focused on plausibility. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 4:20 pm
One way to think about this: The decision is a modern Marbury v. [read post]
27 Oct 2019, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
The phone hacking saga continues with Byline Investigates reporting that Sienna Miller and Sir Simon Hughes have launched claims against the Sun. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 5:30 am by Catherine Rose
Allowing any criminal offence to suffice would widen the defence beyond its original purpose and open it up to abuse (cf Hibberd v DPP (referenced by Lord Hughes). [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 1:49 am by Ryan Dolby-Stevens, Olswang
A Matrix team, headed by UKSCBlog editor Hugh Tomlinson QC, is acting for MLA. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 3:00 am
Lisabeth Hughes Abramson, author of the Court of Appeals opinion in Boone v. [read post]
30 Jul 2007, 4:59 pm
Hugh Hewitt recently linked Mark Steyn's wrap up column on the Conrad Black trial, in which Steyn opined:Lord Black of Crossharbour is now a convicted felon. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 10:32 am by Orin S. Kerr
The parties shall address whether the Court of Appeals erred by: (1) holding that the warrant to search the defendant's cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, see People v Hughes, 506 Mich 512, 538 (2020); (2) failing to sever any valid portions of the search warrant from any invalid portions, see People v Keller, 479 Mich 467, 479 (2007); (3) holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply, see People… [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 5:00 am by Howard Friedman
 Numerous other claims were dismissed.In Hughes v. [read post]