Search for: "State v. Parks"
Results 8041 - 8060
of 11,306
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2021, 1:31 pm
Penn State Law Research Paper No. 06-2020). [read post]
17 Mar 2022, 6:00 am
The trial court did not err by revoking the defendant’s probation where there was substantial evidence that he had constructive possession of controlled substances State v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 6:30 am
Relying on a 1953 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court, Masetta v. [read post]
28 Jan 2023, 8:00 am
” The colloquy with Park recalled Thomas’s concurring opinion in Missouri v. [read post]
25 Feb 2020, 2:10 pm
Supreme Court in a landmark 1968 decision, Terry v. [read post]
2 May 2023, 12:13 pm
(Johnson v. [read post]
4 Apr 2020, 7:51 am
The Court ruled that the Park was a public forum and that the rules which prohibited free speech and petitions in the Park violated the right to free speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.GeorgiaKatamadze v. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 11:50 am
Committee to Relocate Marilyn v. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 4:15 am
This became known as the “impairment prong” of the National Parks test. [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 2:55 pm
Ocean Street Extension Neighborhood Assn. v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 9:05 am
My own view is that both the Lemon v. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 8:00 am
Huskey v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 8:06 am
July 6, 2011) South Park parody of a YouTube viral video is fair use (on a motion to dismiss) [read post]
13 May 2020, 3:22 am
Following the Advocate General’s opinion and the CJEU’s judgement in Pula Parking (C-551/15 – ECLI:EU:C:2017:193), the Court notes that ‘it is irrelevant that certain activities were carried out upon delegation from a State’ (para. 39). [read post]
26 Nov 2007, 7:49 am
Box 308 Faribault, MN 55021-0308 Phone: (507) 332-5491 (V/TTY); (800) 657-3936 (V/TTY/Toll Free) DEAF, Inc. 413 Wacouta Street Suite 300 St. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 1:27 pm
Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 10:53 am
The question here, though, was whether the bedroom tax policy is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” because the bedroom tax involved a question of high policy – the Secretary of State relied on Humphreys v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 1545, which, in turn, had applied Stec v UK (2006) 43 EHRR 1017 to argue for a different test depending on the ground of discrimination and the type of policy. [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 7:31 pm
In Rosenbach v. [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 7:31 pm
In Rosenbach v. [read post]
