Search for: "State v. Peace" Results 841 - 860 of 4,302
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Apr 2009, 3:36 pm
While Worldlii covers many jurisdictions, it missed last night’s decision in Malvolio v. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 1:15 pm
He stated that if his request were denied, he would seek to waive counsel and represent himself. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 7:01 am by Jeffrey Krivis
If anyone here objects to this union, speak now, or forever hold your peace. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 2:26 am
It is essential that the party presenting such argument adduces convincing evidence of the peaceful coexistence of the marks. 25 As regards the ‘peaceful coexistence’ requirement, it suffices to state that there is no evidence on file to demonstrate how the marks have been encountered by the consumer in the market place and in relation to which services. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 10:20 am by Vanessa Sauter
Yishai Schwartz provided an update on military commission proceedings in United States v. al-Nashiri. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 9:45 am by WSLL
State, 2012 WY 133, 286 P.3d 1033 (Wyo. 2012) and Cobb v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 4:50 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Witkowich v SUNY Alfred State Coll. of Ceramics, 80 AD3 1099 - Stress resulting from a lawful personnel action, including discipline, is not a compensable injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law3. [read post]
13 Oct 2019, 4:01 am by Administrator
An act can be considered a breach of the peace only if it involves some level of violence and a risk of harm; it is only in the face of such a serious danger that the state’s ability to lawfully interfere with individual liberty comes into play; behaviour that is merely disruptive, annoying or unruly is not a breach of the peace. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 9:52 am by Gene Quinn
United States Supreme Court I am just about out of ways to creatively announce that the United States Supreme Court has once again had a decision issue day come and go without issuing a decision in Bilski v. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 8:41 am by CLARE MONTGOMERY QC
The Court drew comfort from the decision in R (AHK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  [2012] EWHC 1117 (Admin),  [2012] ACD 66  in which Ouseley J held that the fact that  the open material in an immigration judicial review did not provide a sustainable reason for the decisions in question  in AHK would not lead to the decisions being quashed. [read post]