Search for: "Larry Jones v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2016, 7:55 pm
By 2008 U.S. courts deemed the area to be under de facto sovereignty of the United States (Boumediene v. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 9:23 am
Jones and William L. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 7:21 pm
Whitfield's case, United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 3:16 pm
The first case is United States v. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 9:21 pm
Thanks for that back-handed compliment, Larry! [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 6:08 am
” The prosecutor answered: “Your Honor, we believe that we have an argument that these statements of Larry Boatner are not material. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 5:49 am
State v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 7:44 am
Elaborating arguments developed by Larry Tribe, they may insist that only treaties, approved by two-thirds of the Senate, serve as constitutionally appropriate vehicles for such agreements – thereby making it much tougher to get passed into law.To parry this threat, free-market conservatives will emphasize post-New Deal transformations that gave popular legitimacy to this Article one detour around the Treaty Clause, relying on the narrative that David Golove and I provide in a lengthy… [read post]
6 Mar 2010, 3:52 am
Fung (IPblog) US Copyright – Decisions Court of Appeal for the 5th Circuit: You can't claim ‘innocence’ of musical copyrights: Maverick Recording Company v Whitney Harper (Ars Technica) District Court Massachusetts: Tenenbaum and Nesson ordered to pay labels’ fees over discovery dispute; court finds ‘no extenuating circumstances’: Sony BMG v Tenenbaum (Copyright & Campaigns) (Ars Technics) District Court N D California: Dancing… [read post]
6 Mar 2010, 3:52 am
Fung (IPblog) US Copyright – Decisions Court of Appeal for the 5th Circuit: You can't claim ‘innocence’ of musical copyrights: Maverick Recording Company v Whitney Harper (Ars Technica) District Court Massachusetts: Tenenbaum and Nesson ordered to pay labels’ fees over discovery dispute; court finds ‘no extenuating circumstances’: Sony BMG v Tenenbaum (Copyright & Campaigns) (Ars Technics) District Court N D California: Dancing… [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 1:48 am
Humphreys J stated that there had been “no debate around the issue of the public interest, relevant to the anonymity of suspects, nor any consideration of the need for a fair balance of rights. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 6:05 am
Id.; see Jones v. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 2:29 pm
(2021) Donald Drakeman, The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory: Why We Need the Framers (2021) Jamal Greene, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights is Tearing America Apart (2021) David Schwartz, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 7:45 am
Raleigh, NC 27673 Phone: (919) 733-9250; (V/TTY); (800) 821-6922 (V/TTY/Toll Free in NC only) Fax: (919) 733-9173 Pathways to the Future, Inc. 525 Mineral Springs Drive Sylva, NC 28779 Phone: (828) 631-1167(V/TTY) Fax: (828) 631-1169 E-mail: pathways@main.nc.us State ADA Coordinator Larry Jones NC Office on the ADA 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603-1336 Phone: (919) 715-2302 (V/TTY) E-mail: Larry.Jones@ncmail.net… [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 8:40 am
Sunstein, One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (Harvard, 2001) Larry D. [read post]
31 Jan 2015, 8:24 pm
(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2015) Professor James Stewart, of the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia, has produced a valuable on line symposium: Business and Human Rights: Next Steps. [read post]
26 Aug 2022, 4:00 am
White Coats in the State Capital: OB-GYNs become political force in abortion wars Yahoo News – Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly (Politico) | Published: 8/22/2022 Physicians, many of whom have never mobilized politically, are banding together in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 4:32 pm
Smith was arrested, Investigator Jones took Mr. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 9:00 pm
” Following this line of reasoning, the High Court later stated in U.S. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 5:50 am
” Following this line of reasoning, the High Court later stated in U.S. v. [read post]
