Search for: "Davis v. United States"
Results 921 - 940
of 3,032
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2017, 2:31 am
The decision in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB) clarifies the application of the statutory defence of honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013. [read post]
10 Nov 2017, 5:29 am
No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court declared this a non-issue this year when they denied certiorari in Davis v. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 10:10 am
v=%CE%B1&r=04833355782549953; R. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 10:36 am
United States. [read post]
2 Nov 2017, 2:27 pm
Davis v. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 9:01 pm
United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not require state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers as part of the implementation of a federal law (the Brady gun control law). [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 7:30 am
However, according to Davis v. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 12:20 pm
Payne (La. 2002); see also Davis v. [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 3:41 am
The first is Ayestas v. [read post]
28 Oct 2017, 4:00 am
Amr al-Azm, associate professor at Shawnee State University, drew attention to the importance of Syrian cultural heritage and the importance of non-state actors to preserve it. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:22 pm
The board implemented those recommendations.[16] The Court agreed with the board’s stated reasons for demand refusal, namely that commencing a suit would impair Wyndham’s ability to defend against the FTC suit. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:22 pm
The board implemented those recommendations.[16] The Court agreed with the board’s stated reasons for demand refusal, namely that commencing a suit would impair Wyndham’s ability to defend against the FTC suit. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 12:56 pm
” Unlike the Davis trial, Texas v. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 6:12 am
United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272 (2016) • M. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 3:00 am
In fact, the 14th Amendment had been passed during the time of Davis’ indictment in the federal court system, when the case of United States v. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 9:01 pm
And they also understand that the state’s ostensible goal—anti-pollution—could be more precisely accomplished by a law that is more directly tailored to the state’s purpose, a ban on littering (as the Court reasoned in Schneider v. [read post]
Argument analysis: Justices seem primed to find constitutional limits on the detention of immigrants
4 Oct 2017, 9:44 am
Deputy Solicitor General Malcom Stewart began for the United States by “stress[ing] the breadth of Congress’s constitutional authority to establish the rules under which aliens will be allowed to enter and remain in the United States. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 2:50 am
In Davis v. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 8:12 am
Among those, just eight cite the most relevant texts: the Fourteenth Amendment (the basis for the finding that partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable under the Constitution in Davis v. [read post]
29 Sep 2017, 12:21 pm
Thus, to state a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that `the deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of state law. [read post]
