Search for: "Lawrence Johnson v. State" Results 121 - 140 of 232
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2015, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Hotak v London Borough of Southwark; Johnson v Solihull; and Kanu v London Borough of Southwark, heard on 15 December 2014. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 12:00 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Reverdy Johnson represented the appellants (Waring et al.) in Waring v. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 7:52 am by John Elwood
United States, 14-282, asking whether conspiracy to commit robbery is a violent felony justifying an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, appears to be a hold for Johnson v. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 3:24 am by Amy Howe
(Kevin Johnson previewed the case for this blog earlier this month.) [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 9:47 pm
Both the District Court in Lawrence as well as the SJC found that the Johnsons launched their harassment campaign after the Lyons opposed the Johnsons’ development plans. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 6:11 am by Jim Sedor
The agency also approved of a second set of regulations in the form of an interim final rule responding to the ruling in McCutcheon v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 4:17 am
Many states have legal rules that call for religious exemptions from generally applicable state and local laws.[49] Some such rules are enacted by statute, using so-called “Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 8:40 am by Matthew Crow
” The arc of Kidd’s trajectory as he is thrown from the ship for Johnson crystalizes the arc of antebellum history in the United States, when the intertwined forces of empire, capital, and slavery drove the first republican constitutional order to its fate. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm by Mary Dwyer
MacDonald 12-1490Issue: Whether the Virginia courts unreasonably applied Lawrence v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 3:59 am by Terry Hart
In a recent commentary, Lawrence Lessig stated the need to “learn how liberty can live in the digital age. [read post]
7 May 2013, 8:53 am
This was explained by Kitchin J in Novartis AG v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd [2009] EWHC 1671 (Pat) at [122] as follows, having cited a passage from G2/98: “I discern from this passage that the EPO considers it is permissible to afford different priority dates to different parts of a patent claim where those parts represent a limited number of clearly defined alternative subject-matters and those alternative subject-matters have been disclosed (and are enabled)… [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 2:54 am by Peter Mahler
Lawrence Factory Stores v Ogdensburg Bridge & Port Auth. (202 AD2d 844, 845 [3d Dept 1994]) because the agreement identified the specific purpose of [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 6:29 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
At The Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter discusses the amicus brief he filed in United States v. [read post]