Search for: "Reed v. Reed" Results 801 - 820 of 3,255
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2015, 3:00 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Giving the lead judgment Lord Reed stated that the decisions taken to authorise the segregation under the Prison Rules 1999, rule 45(2), was not taken by the Secretary of State but instead by a senior prison officer. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 2:24 pm by Cleve Clinton
  Hope on the Horizon – Daimler AG v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 11:25 am by Marcia Oddi
Election law expert Rick Pildes has a entry titled "The First Amendment, Direct Democracy, and the Risks of Technology: Today's... [read post]
21 May 2015, 7:41 am
Although the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints has been challenged repeatedly across the country, it has consistently been upheld. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 11:20 am
Reed, Fifth Circuit: Appellant was convicted of trafficking in counterfeit goods. [read post]
2 Mar 2016, 4:26 pm by Kevin LaCroix
In the following guest post, John Reed Stark, President of John Reed Stark Consulting and former Chief of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, sorts out the issues involved in the battle between Apple and the government, in light of all the circumstances, including the February 29, 2016 opinion by Eastern District of New York Judge James Orenstein in the separate Apple iPhone unlocking case. [read post]
17 May 2016, 8:19 am by Anthony Fairclough
” [11] The Court unanimously rejected the MoJ’s appeal, Lord Reed giving the judgment. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 2:13 am by Dan Tench
Lord Reed, the second most recent Justice, is a relative youngster at 55. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 8:55 am
 On appeal, the UK Supreme Court panel was composed of Lords Mance, Sumption, Hodge, Reed and Briggs. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 12:40 pm
  This continues to be an issue that would benefit from either Congressional action or a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court, something the Court declined to do in Reed Elsevier.More detail of Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. [read post]