Search for: "Branch v. Mays"
Results 1181 - 1200
of 6,280
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Aug 2016, 1:25 pm
Vera and Shaw v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 1:09 pm
Common Cause and Lamone v. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 11:11 pm
V. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 8:40 am
In Trump v. [read post]
21 Jul 2013, 7:42 pm
V. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 5:00 am
The Supreme Court will decide in the Carpenter v. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 8:54 am
V. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 5:50 pm
S. 683, 693 (1974) (“the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”); Printz v. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 2:26 pm
” The majority opinion in District Attorney’s Office v. [read post]
24 Apr 2007, 11:10 am
Board of Education and Roe v. [read post]
9 May 2010, 9:50 pm
Of course it is not possible to undertake a root and branch review of the European Convention, but we can at least ask what role, if any, is played by the specific protection for spiritual beliefs in modern life. [read post]
9 Oct 2011, 11:12 am
The style of the case is Emma Gonzales v. [read post]
5 May 2011, 12:02 pm
The opinion, styled Markel American Insurance Company v. [read post]
19 Jun 2014, 1:30 pm
Wholly apart from the ongoing debate over the President’s power to transfer or release detainees, the Cotton Amendment would quite clearly violate the Suspension Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. [read post]
17 May 2012, 5:51 am
V. [read post]
13 Aug 2012, 1:16 am
While the defendants' cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 592; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 4:04 am
While the defendants' cross motion was made more than 120 days after the note of issue was filed and, therefore, was untimely (see Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 648), an untimely cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where, as here, a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds (see Grande v Peteroy, 39 AD3d 590, 592; Lennard v Khan, 69 AD3d 812, 814; Bressingham v Jamaica Hosp. [read post]
6 Aug 2024, 5:30 am
In United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 8:00 am
Essentially, the states are asking the judiciary to overturn a landmark Supreme Court decision Garcia v. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 3:57 pm
In Boumediene v. [read post]
