Search for: "State v. High" Results 1341 - 1360 of 32,074
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2012, 10:22 am by Brandon Gatto
The goal of the endeavor is to counteract the 2010 US Supreme Court [official website] decision of Citizens United v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 9:05 pm by Walter Olson
Tweet Tags: EEOC, religious discrimination, Supreme CourtEEOC v. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 1:19 am by sally
High Court (Chancery Division) Public Trustee v Butler & Anor [2012] EWHC 858 (Ch) (03 April 2012) DKH Retail Ltd v Republic (Retail) Ltd [2012] EWHC 877 (Ch) (03 April 2012) High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) J Preston & Sons Ltd [2012] EWHC 870 (QB) (03 April 2012) Letts v Royal Sun Alliance Plc [2012] EWHC 875 (QB) (03 April 2012) The Serious Organised Crime Agency v Robb [2012] EWHC 803 (QB) (30 March 2012) Sharif, R.… [read post]
5 Jan 2023, 11:37 am by Holly
January 5, 2023  |  By: Ryan Kennedy On November 7, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Virginia decided the case of Harrell v. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 5:45 pm
Of greater relevance is the discussion of the Delhi High Court decision in Delhi Towers Ltd. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 3:28 pm
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Richards, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1841 (23 July 2008) Cooper, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1856 (31 July 2008) Norman, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1810 (31 July 2008) B & Ors, R v [2008] EWCA Crim 1997 (15 August 2008) High Court (Chancery Division) Dragonfly Consultancy Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWHC 2113 (Ch) (03 September 2008) High Court (Commercial Court) Aspinall’s Club Ltd… [read post]
9 Nov 2008, 1:54 am
State lawmakers have the duty to provide adequate resources to train and compensate death-penalty lawyers, the high court said. [read post]
30 Jun 2019, 11:46 am by Phillips & Associates
The state legislature passed a bill on June 19, 2019 that amends the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) to address sexual harassment specifically. [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 5:32 am
The primary question for the state high court was whether an additional $2.5 million in punitive damages (intended to punish defendant) was appropriate. [read post]