Search for: "State v. Davi" Results 1381 - 1400 of 5,652
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2022, 5:58 am by Bernard Bell
” 3 KENNETH DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE, § 20.04 at 74 (1958); accord, Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 4:09 am by tracey
Supreme Court Quila & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 45 (12 October 2011) AXA General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Lord Advocate & Ors (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 46 (12 October 2011) Ambrose v Harris, Procurator Fiscal, Oban (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 43 (6 October 2011) Her Majesty’s Advocate v P (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 44 (6 October 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Jones v… [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 4:16 pm by Hannah Kiddoo
He added that one way to ensure that only the guilty are convicted is to uphold the promise of Gideon v. [read post]
28 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
This summary must include (i) the person or persons affected; (ii) the date the incident was discovered and whether it is ongoing; (iii) whether any data was stolen, altered, accessed or used for any unauthorized purpose; (iv) the effect of the incident on the entity’s operations; and (v) whether the incident has been remediated or is currently being remediated. [read post]
20 Dec 2006, 1:29 am
Fully six years before the decision in Brown v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 2:41 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dixon, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2163 (05 October 2012) Ferriter, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2211 (03 October 2012) Matthews, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2154 (27 September 2012) Williamson, R. v [2012] EWCA Crim 2114 (02 August 2012) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Whiston, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 1374 (25 October 2012) Davies & Ors v Secretary of… [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 1:54 pm
Filed: November 7, 2013 (unpublished)Opinion by: Judge Andre Davis Held: the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina was not clearly erroneous and did not abuse its discretion  in ruling that (1) the parties reached a binding and enforceable oral settlement agreement; and (2) plaintiff did not proceed in bad faith, so neither a dismissal with prejudice nor an award of attorney's fees was appropriate.Facts: Plaintiff made a $12 million… [read post]