Search for: "State v. Butts"
Results 81 - 100
of 573
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Mar 2013, 11:45 am
I could certainly see such a holding come out of a differently-constituted Court, or from a state supreme court not compelled to interpret its state constitutional provisions identically to those contained in the federal Constitution.Which is not to say that Justice Bedsworth necessarily gets this one wrong. [read post]
23 May 2013, 7:59 am
Here are the materials in City of New York v. [read post]
12 Mar 2013, 1:48 pm
Your knees hurt, your back hurts, your butt hurts, whatever. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 1:11 pm
In its 2011 decision in Harrington v. [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 7:36 am
Butt v Norway [2012] ECHR 1905 confirmed the earlier approach and in Jeunesse v Netherlands (2015) 60 EHRR 17 the Grand Chamber authoritatively dealt with the issue further by holding that “settled migrants” were special because the subsequent withdrawal of settlement rights (owing to criminal activities) will constitute an interference with the respect for private and/or family life. [read post]
15 Nov 2022, 9:04 am
In a similar vein, we are thankful for the helpful briefing and argument we received from the United States as amicus curiae. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 8:00 am
Butts v. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 3:43 pm
Justice Gorsuch with opinion in Texas v. [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 12:24 pm
McClendon v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 4:39 am
The Gallego court analogized the DNA testing of the discarded cigarette butt to the lifting of fingerprints from discarded juice containers in People v. [read post]
9 Jul 2008, 12:22 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 May 2010, 6:49 am
United States v. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 3:54 pm
However, in the case of Batson v. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 12:30 pm
New on the Bound By Oath podcast: the story of Berman v. [read post]
28 Oct 2007, 7:09 am
Christiansen v. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 4:22 am
State v. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 1:57 pm
Is it somewhat of a pain in the butt if someone actually files an absurd "lien" against you with the Secretary of State? [read post]
21 Mar 2008, 12:22 am
"); Butts v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 5:51 am
Co. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 6:50 am
This doctrine holds,in the broadest outline, that English (like U.S.) courts 'will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory' (Underhill v Hernandez, 168 U.S. 250, 252 (1897)) or 'will not adjudicate upon the transactions of foreign sovereign states' (Buttes Gas Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) [1982] AC 888, 931G). [read post]
