Search for: "Akins v. State"
Results 1061 - 1080
of 2,814
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2009, 6:31 am
United States; Siegelman v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 12:44 pm
In Waters v. [read post]
Argument analysis: Spinning heads and swimming constitutional rights in debates over an accrual rule
18 Apr 2019, 8:11 am
McDonough v. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 8:35 pm
Back in 2012, Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is constitutional in its highly controversial decision in NFIB v. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 5:17 am
United States, holding that the use of a “Stingray” cellsite simulator required a warrant under the Fourth Amendment, Chris Seaton and Andrew King were challenged to debate whether the Third-Party Doctrine or the Supreme Court’s Riley v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 2:28 pm
(Akin Gump represents the petitioner.) [read post]
22 May 2023, 12:13 am
The arguments In Forstater v CGD Europe & Ors [2021] UKEAT 0105 20 1006, the EAT had declared at [79] that: “in applying Grainger V, tribunals [should] bear in mind that it is only those beliefs that would be an affront to Convention principles in a manner akin to that of pursuing totalitarianism, or advocating Nazism, or espousing violence and hatred of the gravest of forms, that should be capable of being not worthy of respect in a democratic society. [read post]
15 Jun 2021, 1:12 pm
The court distinguished United States v. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 12:10 pm
See Skilstaf, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2021, 3:39 pm
The second case, NCAA v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 9:32 am
(Disclosure: Akin Gump is co-counsel for the petitioner.) [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 6:45 am
At FindLaw, Sherry Colb discusses Schwarzenegger v. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 10:57 pm
In Truly Nolen of America v. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:14 pm
NetChoice v. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 3:20 am
, v. [read post]
5 May 2011, 7:36 pm
by Daniel RichardsonState v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 2:21 pm
However, the key issue was whether the YOT social worker was exercising a social services function in this apparent assessment of TG as a 'child in need', thus making the referral to the HPU akin to the position in R (G) v Southwark LBC [2009] 1 WLR 1299 (our report here), or not, in which case the situation would be akin to R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2008] 1 WLR 535 (our report here). [read post]
6 May 2010, 2:21 pm
However, the key issue was whether the YOT social worker was exercising a social services function in this apparent assessment of TG as a 'child in need', thus making the referral to the HPU akin to the position in R (G) v Southwark LBC [2009] 1 WLR 1299 (our report here), or not, in which case the situation would be akin to R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2008] 1 WLR 535 (our report here). [read post]
25 Jul 2014, 10:03 am
. * Loftus v. [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 6:10 am
Nebraska and Department of Education v. [read post]