Search for: "Burr v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 323
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2018, 2:15 pm
As the Supreme Court explained in United States v. [read post]
1 May 2018, 2:50 am
Marshall won 29 out of 32 cases he argued in front of the high court, including Brown v. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 7:23 am
Erskine's position was quoted by the defense in the 1806 case United States v. [read post]
18 Apr 2018, 1:36 pm
Richard Burr (R. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 8:49 am
Burr (Jurisdiction)Gibbs v. [read post]
5 Apr 2018, 3:29 pm
Burr (Jurisdiction)Gibbs v. [read post]
25 Mar 2018, 1:10 pm
The Court held that Supreme Court precedent, Kirby v.Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972) and United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 6:13 am
Clarke LJ held, applying the principles in Cory v Burr (1883) 8 App Cas 393 and Wayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd [1974] 1 QB 57, where there are two proximate causes, one that is covered and the other subject to an exclusion, liability will not arise. [read post]
1 Mar 2018, 1:06 pm
Robert Loeb and Sarah Grant argued that the decision of the Eastern District of Virginia in Al Shimari, et. al. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2018, 9:09 am
In Jacobus v. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
Two unanimous Supreme Court decisions, United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 8:00 am
DiFranco v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 8:00 am
Aaron Burr: The Treason Trial U.S. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 11:00 am
Rumsfeld (2004) (allowing detention of a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant) and in Boumediene v. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 3:16 pm
Related Cases: Jewel v. [read post]
14 Nov 2017, 2:00 am
The general rule, as stated by the Supreme Court in Newport v. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 12:01 am
But Wirt went back to Marshall in 1832 to argue Worcester v. [read post]
28 Oct 2017, 5:01 am
Richard Burr's proposal to reauthorize the expiring authorities. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 3:00 am
Michael Parsons v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 7:57 pm
Tejas Narechania's new paper, Certiorari, Universality, and a Patent Puzzle, forthcoming in Michigan Law Review argues that a major identifying factor for the Supreme Court's interest in patent cases is a field split: an area where a particular patent law doctrine plays out differently in patent law than in other fields of law where it is used. [read post]
