Search for: "State v. Sweeney"
Results 81 - 100
of 279
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Sep 2021, 9:53 am
Here's a follow-up to my commentary on the Epic Games v. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 4:00 am
Accordingly, said the court, this case was governed by the rule of New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as embodying "the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 11:49 am
Charles Sweeney v. [read post]
6 May 2012, 6:51 am
In most states, the Sweeney’s lawsuit would be promptly dismissed. [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 4:25 pm
” In another Australian case, Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd ((2006) 226 CLR 161), a personal injury claim, the court had considered the rationale for the principles derived from Colonial Mutual Life and reached two conclusions. [read post]
11 Sep 2007, 11:00 am
[Carlson v. [read post]
28 May 2012, 9:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 9:59 pm
United States v. [read post]
27 May 2020, 11:32 am
Only in 2003, with Lawrence v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 7:10 pm
The petitions of the day are: Sweeney v. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 9:28 am
Apple judgment says.The consolation prize that is the Epic Games v. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 7:15 pm
United States v. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 8:24 am
In yet another opinion with a dissent, Sweeney v. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
Sweeney, Steven L. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 6:00 am
Sweeney, Steven L. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 4:00 am
Citing Mills v Sweeney, 219 NY 213, decided in 1916, the Appellate Division explained that any local law that "[a]bolishes an elective office" or "reduces the salary of an elective officer during his [or her] term of office" is subject to the approval of a mandatory referendum. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 3:30 am
As noted above, similar questions were considered in Lumba, and also in the more recent case of R (Kambadzi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 1 WLR 1299, which was the subject of a [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 9:33 pm
CAAF also granted review in United States v. [read post]
8 May 2019, 8:49 am
Sweeney was not a person authorized under O.R.C. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 10:32 am
Sweeney, 40 N.J. 359 (1963); State v. [read post]
