Search for: "Starks v State" Results 1281 - 1300 of 1,778
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Feb 2012, 11:13 am by Joel R. Brandes
$130,000 cap is increased automatically on January 31, 2012 and on January 31 every two years thereafter by the product of the average annual percentage changes in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) as published by the United States department of labor bureau of labor statistics for the two year period rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 7:50 pm by LTA-Editor
Duncan Stark Blog Editor   On Monday, the Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision in the Fourth Amendment case Unites States v. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 3:00 am
The petitioners have pulled together an experienced legal team, including Lord Anthony Gifford, counsel to the landmark case of Dudgeon v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 8:30 am by azatty
In April 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court, in Varnum v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 3:30 pm by Benjamin Wittes
 My team is the United States armed forces. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 5:30 am by INFORRM
In R (on the application of Naik) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2011] EWCA Civ 1546) the Court of Appeal confirmed that the exclusion of an Indian Muslim public speaker from the United Kingdom after making statements which breached the Home Office’s “unacceptable behaviours policy” was lawful, and that any interference with his rights was justified. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 1:05 pm by Michelle Ball, Attorney for Students
State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 226-227; Sasaki, at pp. 1454-1455; Stark, The Right to Vote on Taxes, supra, 96 Nw.U. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 8:23 am
Stark (D-CA) on 11/03/11 Requires state plans for foster care and adoption assistance to have procedures to assist alien children in the child welfare system achieve special immigrant juvenile status and LPR status before exiting foster care. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 1:50 am by Rosalind English
Carnwath LJ agreed: The stark message to an ordinary listener of statement 1 (“every Muslim should be a terrorist to every anti-social element”) is hardly mitigated by the explanatory reasoning which surrounds it. [read post]