Search for: "State v. Bowen" Results 101 - 120 of 349
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Nov 2016, 9:00 am by David Ryan
This tendency aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowen v. [read post]
20 May 2013, 4:48 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
The Court relied on two recently decided cases, Bowen v. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 8:58 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Rather, the cases cited by themajority involved situations in which the Rule 60(b)movant had lost entirely and failed to appeal.Judge Dyk cites Bowen:The Supreme Court’s decision in Bowen v. [read post]
25 Apr 2007, 4:34 am
Here is an excerpt from that case:This case requires us to reexamine the jurisdictional boundary between the Tucker Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, as that boundary is understood in the light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 9:00 am by Michael F. Smith
Briggs (1986) in denying the officers qualified immunity, and whether Malley and United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:35 am by tracey
& Ors v Smith & Nephew Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2011] EWHC 2039 (Pat) (27 July 2011) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Suurpere v Nice & Anor [2011] EWHC 2003 (QB) (27 July 2011) Bowen (A Child) & Ors v The National Trust [2011] EWHC 1992 (QB) (27 July 2011) W v Veolia Environmental Services (UK) Plc [2011] EWHC 2020 (QB) (27 July 2011) Wright v Caan [2011] EWHC 1978 (QB) (27 July 2011) Divya & Ors v Toyo… [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 3:14 pm
According to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Thomas Brown Jr. filed the case styled Brown v. [read post]
28 May 2012, 9:07 am by INFORRM
The appeal by way of case stated in the “Twitter joke” case (Chambers v DPP) was heard on 8 February 2012 and judgment was reserved. [read post]
30 Aug 2013, 7:24 am by Lindsay Griffiths
A recent ruling in Washington state may impact the actions of the National Labor Relations Board, as reported by Ogden Murphy Wallace. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 7:15 pm by Maureen Johnston
United States, or (b) “preventing further [government] disclosure,” United States v. [read post]