Search for: "Means v. State"
Results 1261 - 1280
of 61,653
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jun 2018, 9:18 am
In South Dakota v. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 2:28 am
The US Supreme Court ruled Monday in Allen v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 8:00 pm
Chang v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
‘Member State’ shall mean a Member State of the European Union. 3. [read post]
13 May 2011, 3:25 am
Regina (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice (JUSTICE and another intervening); In re MacDermott’s and McCartney’s Applications for Judicial Review (JUSTICE intervening) [2011] UKSC 18; [2011] WLR (D) 155 “A miscarriage of justice, within the meaning of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, occurred where a new fact so undermined the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 10:14 am
A recent court case out of Georgia -- State v. [read post]
15 Jul 2008, 12:07 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 May 2018, 10:31 am
“Just because people back then didn’t think it was irrational” for a state to pass anti-miscegenation laws, Barnett continued, “doesn’t mean that it was rational” under the actual text of the 14th Amendment. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 5:58 am
This means that an inspector may now ‘go behind’ a listing and re-determine its validity. [read post]
28 Sep 2023, 1:47 pm
” Miller v. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 2:05 pm
Under the case law, "shall" can mean "may" when (1) it obviously doesn't mean "must" in the context of the statute's purpose;(2) reading it as "must" would lead to unjust consequences; or(3) reading it as "may" doesn't harm any public or private advantage, right, or benefit.In State v. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 6:10 am
Initially, in State v. [read post]
7 May 2014, 4:00 am
The State’s reduction of its employer contribution for health insurance premiums for judges was an unconstitutional diminution of judicial compensationBransten v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03214, Appellate Division, First DepartmentSitting and retired members of the New York State Judiciary challenged the State’s recent decrease in its employer contribution to the cost of the judges' health insurance premiums, contending that it… [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:50 pm
The Supreme Court of the United States recently announced its ruling in the Wyeth v. [read post]
9 Apr 2019, 7:42 am
State v. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 4:37 am
State v. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 9:00 pm
In Arizona v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 8:31 pm
Valasquez v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 2:45 pm
Brennan Center: Proving a Section 2 case is by no means an easy task, especially, as the Milligan opinion noted, at the congressional and state legislative levels. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 9:12 am
If such provisions concern matters otherwise beyond Congress' legislative powers, the Constitution leaves their implementation to the States. [read post]
