Search for: "State v. D. C."
Results 101 - 120
of 14,435
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 May 2011, 3:11 am
Iaia v Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (Case C-452/09); [2011] WLR (D) 180 “A member state could rely on the expiry of a reasonable limitation period as a defence in legal proceedings brought by an individual seeking compensation for the member state’s failure to implement a Directive correctly provided the member state was not responsible for the delay in the claimant’s ability to… [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 7:02 am
Supreme Court Opinion in Maetta Vance v. [read post]
14 Nov 2023, 9:22 am
C. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 10:57 am
Werynski v Mediatel 4B spólka z o o (Case C-283/09); [2011] WLR (D) 50 “In respect of acts which had been adopted in the field of Title IV of the EC Treaty, since December 1 2009 the Court of Justice of the European Union has had jurisdiction to hear and determine a reference for a preliminary ruling from a court against whose decision there was a judicial remedy under national law even where the reference was lodged prior to that date. [read post]
1 May 2019, 6:46 am
State v. [read post]
6 Jun 2007, 3:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 12:33 pm
Id., at 829 (quoting United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2006, 4:22 am
S.E. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2010, 1:32 pm
State v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 12:13 pm
In United States v. [read post]
11 Jun 2016, 11:32 am
In United States v. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 1:10 pm
Although the United States Supreme Court at one time interpreted the clause to bar admission of out-of-court statements that lacked adequate indicia of reliability (Ohio v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 11:42 am
C. 2254(d), federal habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state court has adjudicated on the merits unless, among other exceptions, the state-court decision denying relief involves “an unreasonable application” of “clearly established Federal law, as determined by” this Court. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 2:18 pm
Div. 2012), A-1066-09T3, February 2, 2012: Any award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule 5:3-5(c) is subject to the provisions of Rule 4:42-9(d), which requires an allowance for fees to be “included in the judgment or order stating the determination” and not provided as a separate order. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 1:55 pm
Morris Mohawk Gaming GroupUnited States District Court for D. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 10:24 am
In Giles v Bravo, 2012 WL 704745 (D. [read post]
1 May 2013, 2:14 pm
C. [read post]
23 Jun 2008, 10:29 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 2:02 am
Association belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL and others v Conseil des ministres (Case C-236/09); [2011] WLR (D) 67 “Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2004/113/EC was invalid with effect from 21 December 2012 since it permitted European Union law and consequently member states’ laws, to derogate from the principle of equal treatment of men and women, guaranteed by articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,… [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 8:25 am
”)(Internally citing to State v. [read post]
