Search for: "Sharp et al v. S" Results 121 - 140 of 265
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2013, 9:35 am by Miriam Seifter
  (By Supreme Court rule, any party other than the petitioner is deemed a respondent before the Court, so IMLA et al. are technically respondents supporting petitioners.) [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 6:01 am by Timothy P. Flynn
Attorney in the case of United States v Samuel Mullet, et al, charged members of a peculiar Amish synod with hate crimes; charges that involve far more complex proofs.About two-years ago, ole Samuel Mullet [you cannot make it up] broke away from the traditional fundamentalist Christian Amish church in which he was raised, to start a renegade sect of his own in Bergholz, Ohio. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 9:21 am by Thomas Hillier
Courts will see a sharp increase in the number of judicial foreclosure filings; it's happening in Multnomah County already. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 9:21 am by Thomas Hillier
Courts will see a sharp increase in the number of judicial foreclosure filings; it's happening in Multnomah County already. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 9:21 am by Thomas Hillier
Courts will see a sharp increase in the number of judicial foreclosure filings; it’s happening in Multnomah County already. [read post]
24 Jun 2012, 4:46 pm by Betsy McKenzie
Litigation to block the bill: Hedges et al., v. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 12:20 am by Rosalind English
In the meanwhile, a much quieter, but much starker drama unfolds in the wake of Pretty , Purdy et al. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 3:05 pm by Lyle Denniston
The Court had heard argument in Douglas, et al., v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 3:36 am by Dave
Cook v The Mortgage Business PLC et al [2012] EWCA Civ 17[note for law students: this is a really important case on land registration in which the principles in Abbey National BS v Cann are considered and applied. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 4:02 pm by Lyle Denniston
  The government’s attack on the Carlin recitation led to the most important constitutional ruling so far on broadcast “indecency” — the Court’s 1978 decision in FCC v. [read post]