Search for: "MRS v. State"
Results 1421 - 1440
of 21,750
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Feb 2016, 11:37 am
In Leary v United States, 395 US 6, 33 [1969], the Supreme Court held that “a criminal statutory presumption must be regarded as ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary,’ and hence unconstitutional, unless it can at least be said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact on which it is made to depend. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 6:46 am
Mr. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 3:34 pm
Facts: In this case (Robert Teel v. [read post]
24 Sep 2015, 4:30 am
The Secretary of State appealed to the Upper Tribunal. [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 7:34 am
In the case, Nissan v. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 6:38 am
State of N.Y. ex rel. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 12:46 pm
Arizona v. [read post]
19 Feb 2007, 11:33 am
Mr. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 9:35 am
Pritchard v. [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 12:29 pm
It has been about one year and eight months since the United States Supreme Court released its landmark decision in Facebook v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 12:50 pm
Tijardovic v Croatia [2014] ECHR 637 (19/6/2014) Mrs T and her family occupied a flat in Split, Croatia, which her father-in-law had held under a specially protected tenancy with the Split Municipality, from 1983 onwards. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 4:00 am
Perhaps we can understand the financial considerations that led the state of Texas to assert a sovereign immunity defense, even though it meant incredibly shabby treatment of Mr. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 9:01 am
Blog: Temas de propiedad intelectual Víctor M. [read post]
26 Jul 2009, 11:39 am
In its recent decision in State of Texas v. [read post]
3 Feb 2014, 3:21 am
Rogers provided an affidavit stating that Mr. [read post]
14 Aug 2007, 11:38 pm
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. [read post]
31 Jul 2009, 2:45 pm
Janine Cox won in State v. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 7:49 am
Hardy, histeam, and Mr. [read post]
24 Jan 2013, 1:13 am
Mr L argued firstly that the judge below had failed to apply the test in Kennealy v Dunne [1977] 1 QBD 837 properly.The court is required to be satisfied that the premises are reasonably required, but on the authority of Kennealy v Dunne that reasonable requirement must be something more than a desire but less than a necessity. [read post]
