Search for: "HOPE v. STATE" Results 8661 - 8680 of 16,494
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Sep 2012, 8:23 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
I certainly hope Noel did not spend all the money while the case was on appeal. [read post]
18 May 2023, 4:24 pm by Amy Howe
The justices sent the case, Arizona v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 3:24 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
If I understand him correctly, he is suggesting that the preemption question turns, in part, on whether a state is seeking fill a gap left by federal inaction in the hope at provoking a federal response, such as more comprehensive federal legislation. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 1:58 pm by Elina Saxena
” The various opposition factions hope to reach a unified psotion for negotiations with the incumbent Syrian regime. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 7:00 am by Sandy Levinson
 Our only disagreement is whether one could do this via a cleverly designed legislative statute--I am in the minority that thinks this possible--or whether it would in fact be necessary to run the quite likely fatal hurdles set up by Article V to eliminate life tenure. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 8:29 am by Andrew Hamm
United States) “The Boldest Moves: When and How to Make Them” (focusing on the power grab in Bush v. [read post]
13 Apr 2017, 8:12 am by Ronald Collins
In fact, I hope originalism goes the way of the dinosaur, which it resembles in some respects. [read post]
24 Apr 2021, 6:47 am by Russell Knight
Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel When A Divorce Case Is Moved To Another State Res Judicata is most useful when a party moves to another state and files a post-judgment divorce motion in that state in the hopes to undo a ruling they didn’t like from the last judge in the prior state. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 3:09 pm by Giles Peaker
Ms T argued that Birmingham City Council v Ali [2009] UKHL 36 supported this argument. [read post]
9 May 2011, 6:07 am by Steve McConnell
So when your client is sued in West Virginia state court, one of the first things to consider is removal.That's what happened in Hartman v. [read post]