Search for: "State v. James" Results 121 - 140 of 10,538
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Feb 2024, 12:36 am by Orin S. Kerr
  In just the last few months, for example, opionions include People by James v. [read post]
17 Feb 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
James McReynolds was a traditional Southern Democrat who was suspicious of federal power and devoted to states’ rights and individual liberties for white men. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
The Union County Board of County Commissioners is hosting Gibbons v. [read post]
16 Feb 2024, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
  At the state level, in Virginia, the same 1924 legislative session originated both the eugenical sterizilization act at issue in Buck v. [read post]
Authors: Ray Giblett, James Morris, Rajaee Rouhani, Stephen Lee, Jeremy Moller, Charles Nugent-Young, Merren Taylor, Timothy Chan, Joshua Kan, Dylan Sault and Steven Li  Welcome to our first wrap up of the year! [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 7:39 pm by Mark Graber
 The specter of Dunning School history haunted oral argument in Anderson v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 1:02 am by INFORRM
On 14 February 2024 there will be a strike out/summary judgment application in the case of Chowdhury-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department KB-2023-003368. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 2:26 pm by Eugene Volokh
On a motion by President Shrum, the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the suit for lack of standing, ruling that the United States Supreme Court in Summers v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 7:45 am by Unreported Opinions
He raises two issues on appeal … Read the opinion The post JAMES ARTHUR HINDS v. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 7:41 am by Unreported Opinions
Criminal law — Sufficiency of evidence — Term of probation Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County of attempted theft of a cell phone, James Earl Fells, appellant, presents for our review two issues … Read the opinion The post JAMES EARL FELLS v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
Nothing in the post-2013 Act case law suggests that the section 3(3) requirement is any less permissive (see, for example, the first instance decision in Butt v Secretary of State [2017] EWHC 2619 (QB), and particularly Mr Justice Nicol’s comments at [39]. [read post]