Search for: "Holding v. State"
Results 1221 - 1240
of 69,976
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2024, 7:43 am
Source: USPTO Rothschild moved to dismiss the complaint under the Second Circuit’s Rogers v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:12 am
Per another Supreme Court precedent, United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:43 am
In this case, the New York Court of Appeals chips away a little further on eyewitness testimony and holds that the criminal conviction needs to be vacated.The case is People v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:30 am
Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:12 am
P’ship v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:01 am
Elrod v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 4:06 am
Contesting the state’s segregationist policy, they took their case (Parker v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:01 pm
’s (Tapestry) proposed $8.5 billion acquisition of Capri Holdings Limited (Capri), which, if consummated, would bring the Coach, Kate Spade and Michael Kors handbag brands together under the same holding company. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:00 pm
However, to paraphrase Justice Stephen Breyer, writing in Heffernan v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:20 am
See James v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 8:44 am
California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) (holding that a state may not criminalize the status of being a drug addict), and conduct, which generally may be punished. [read post]
6 May 2024, 8:39 am
Such objects often hold significance for communities, serving as symbols of their heritage. [read post]
6 May 2024, 7:38 am
It approved the US approach (Hilton v Guyot) to the effect that: ‘The application of the doctrine of comity means that the recognition of foreign decisions is not out of obligation, but rather out of convenience and utility’ [para 59]. [read post]
5 May 2024, 9:01 pm
[V]iolent protest is not protected; peaceful protest is. [read post]
5 May 2024, 10:26 am
The briefing cites to Naterra International, Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2024, 9:44 am
We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media Some problems: First, the court talks about attributing “speech” to the government, when the actual issue is whether an accountholder’s account blocks or content removal constitute an impermissible restriction on third-party speech. [read post]
5 May 2024, 4:13 am
The Supreme Court, in its recent Students for Fair Admissions v. [read post]
