Search for: "LANCASTER v. STATE"
Results 121 - 140
of 306
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Jun 2022, 8:36 am
Khary Penebaker et al v. [read post]
6 Nov 2008, 5:44 pm
Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 12:41 pm
Shoemaker v. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 6:47 am
In Walck v. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 12:21 pm
United States – barring police from using a thermal-imaging device to look into a home Florida v. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 4:35 am
In Holler v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 4:30 am
Shah v. [read post]
13 Jun 2021, 5:19 pm
Notably, even acknowledging the Gallagher v. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 6:50 am
See Lancaster v. [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 9:52 pm
Last week, when the California budget was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, he cut state funding for the ombudsman program. [read post]
4 Jul 2024, 7:00 am
In Bracey v. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 12:30 am
Ideally that selection criteria should be objective and non-discriminatory as possible, although previous case law (Mitchells of Lancaster (Brewers)Ltd v Tattersall) has held that using non-objective criteria is not fatal to a redundancy selection exercise, provided the criteria is used fairly. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 12:18 pm
Co. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 11:43 am
Lancaster, 12-547, which involves distinct claims but may provide another lesson in the need to defer to state-court determinations. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 7:25 am
Lancaster, the Court will consider when and whether a state can abolish a legal defense to a criminal charge without violating the Constitution. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 9:35 am
Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 5:43 am
Lancaster, No. 09 CH 18611, 2009 WL 6521389 (Cir. [read post]
17 May 2008, 1:39 am
., Appellant v. [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 11:19 am
For a discussion of the case and how the Court reached its decision, the full text of the opinion can be found here: In the Matter of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (State Board of Nursing Investigation No. 14-51-05195) v. [read post]
14 May 2007, 8:03 am
Lancaster, Jr., of Portland, Maine, recommended on April 16 that the Court rule that the two states must share regulatory authority over at least parts of the planned project. [read post]
