Search for: "State v. Hartley"
Results 101 - 120
of 122
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jul 2010, 3:52 am
In such circumstances, and against the backdrop of the law generally in this field being in a state of rapid flux at this time, the Court of Appeal in Greene might certainly be forgiven if, with the benefit of hindsight, it appears that it failed to apply Re S correctly. [read post]
8 Jan 2012, 4:25 pm
Terry, No. 150012/2012, Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York. [read post]
27 May 2008, 9:50 am
Ctr. for Women v. [read post]
8 May 2010, 8:53 am
The Legal Satyricon blog has a post about United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Murphy v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 2:38 pm
The court quoted NLRB v. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 4:01 am
There was some debate about whether or not the tree was jointly owned, since its base was across the boundary by about 9 centimetres, but the judge opted to follow Hartley and use the trunk as the defining issue. [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 1:34 pm
See, e.g., Hartley v. [read post]
7 May 2023, 11:43 am
Onions were distributed to wholesalers, restaurants, and retail stores in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 8:56 pm
[…] Given this, and considering that the appealed decision overturned the exequatur decree of the judgment in question on the ground that the [Canadian] judgment, which recognized a judgment from the United States, was a “summary judgment” (hukm musta’jil) enforceable only in the rendering State, despite the broad wording of [the applicable provisions],[vii] which covers all judgments (kul al-ahkam) rendered in a foreign State without specifying… [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 5:13 am
Long before enactment of the BCL, New York’s highest court held in Darcy v Brooklyn & N.Y. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 12:41 pm
” Looking to the history of the NLRA’s enactment, the court noted that the limitations period in Sec. 10(b) was the focus of significant attention when it was introduced as part of the Taft-Hartley Amendments in 1947. [read post]
15 May 2010, 9:34 am
Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam v. [read post]
14 Nov 2012, 5:28 am
Potentially, a Lot of Permutations – eDiscovery Best Practices http://bit.ly/UExXjZ (Doug Austin) When It Comes to eDiscovery, Leave the Driving to Us – http://bit.ly/UyyTWW (Bob Ambrogi) Where There’s Smoke There’s Fire: Powering eDiscovery with Data Loss Prevention – http://bit.ly/XyQTqj (Allison Walton) Without Request, Delaware State Judge Orders Use of Predictive Coding in Complex Case – http://bit.ly/Xn4VLB (Robert Hilson) Why is Legal Hold Still a… [read post]
2 May 2008, 11:03 am
Evans, V. [read post]
11 May 2011, 6:51 am
The criminal case is U.S. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2023, 6:00 am
Second, the limits imposed by Rawls' ideal of public reason do not apply to all actions by the state or even to all coercive uses of state power. [read post]
8 Dec 2024, 6:00 am
Second, the limits imposed by Rawls' ideal of public reason do not apply to all actions by the state or even to all coercive uses of state power. [read post]
28 Nov 2022, 11:48 am
The opposite was true in the United States, as Kahn Freund would often say. [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 5:47 pm
” (Hays Plc v Hartley [2010] EWHC 1068 (QB) at [62]). [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 9:15 am
For the Symposium on the Constitution and Economic InequalityCynthia EstlundJoseph Fishkin and William Forbath, in their book-in-progress, have brilliantly exposed and mined a once-powerful, mostly-forgotten vein of constitutional political economic thought: the notion that widely shared economic opportunity, and a broad middle class flanked by neither an underclass nor an oligarchic overclass, are essential foundations of our republican form of government. [read post]
