Search for: "State v. Self"
Results 9801 - 9820
of 15,320
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2013, 8:56 pm
But its legal analysis—citing a national right to self-defense as well as the laws of war—closely tracks the rationale in that document, as described to The New York Times in October 2011 by people who had read it. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 7:40 am
She notes that the Supreme Court in 2008 said that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 8:16 am
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the defense in EEOC v. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 7:54 am
Maybe… The age of drugs / Dalrymple (Illus. in: Puck, v. 48, no. 1231 (1900 October 10), centerfold). [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 6:07 pm
The petition of the day is: Kansas v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 2:04 pm
In particular, a recent case – Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 2:04 pm
In particular, a recent case – Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 7:07 am
The state has stepped in to prohibit that. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 7:07 am
The state has stepped in to prohibit that. [read post]
30 Jan 2013, 4:50 am
In United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 12:23 pm
In KWV, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 9:18 am
A while back, I posted about a forthcoming article by Carlos Vázquez (Georgetown) and me on the relationship between Bivens remedies and state law, especially in national security cases. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 8:25 am
By David RangavizState v. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 7:40 am
That's why I love this case I taught yesterday in Environmental Law called Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 10:57 am
Doe v. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 7:05 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Criminal Opinions Body: AC34178 - State v. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 7:40 pm
Another problem with Nick’s theory is that it purports to be a claim about the Constitution’s original meaning and yet relies on a concept (treaty non-self-execution) that did not become clearly established until after the Founding (most notably in the Supreme Court’s 1829 decision, Foster v. [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 5:01 pm
More precisely it could not find in the decision anything that reflected its arguments regarding the non ambiguous disclosure in D1 of the three features and the argument of the self-contradiction contained in the opponent’s argumentation. [read post]
26 Jan 2013, 4:08 pm
This recommendation is not legally binding on Member States. [read post]
