Search for: "Sharpe v. State"
Results 1441 - 1460
of 2,598
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Sep 2018, 12:59 pm
In the 1961 decision, Monroe v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 4:12 am
As already mentioned, on 6 July 2012, Sharp J gave the long awaited judgment in El-Naschie v Macmillan, ([2012] EWHC1809 (QB)) heard 11, 14, 16 to 18, 21, 22, 25, 28-30 November, 1 -2 December 2011. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 4:21 pm
Two recent decisions, Economou v de Freitas and Doyle v Smith, provide some guidance on this question, but seem to pull in slightly different directions. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 7:46 pm
” In 1994, in Dolan v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 7:27 am
In Valli Construction, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 4:08 pm
The Transparency Project Blog has a post analysing the recent “civil partnership case”, R v Secretary of State for International Development [2018] UKSC 32. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 4:07 am
Sharpe (1954)) that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from engaging in race discrimination in any context, foreign or domestic. [read post]
10 Jan 2021, 7:27 am
As early as 1928, the Court had indicated that it did not regard this sharp line as sustainable. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 11:09 am
Hall Street Associates v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:00 am
” citing Humane Society of the United States v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:00 am
Connerly v. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 5:49 am
MERCK in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 9:29 am
Sharp v. [read post]
9 Jul 2017, 4:08 pm
On 7 July 2017, the Court of Appeal (Master of the Rolls, Longmore and Sharp LJ) handed down judgment in the case of Brevan Howard Asset Management v Reuters [2017] EWCA Civ 950. [read post]
15 Jan 2021, 10:21 am
In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
Although it was the product of a 2-1 split decision, the ruling in United States v. [read post]
13 May 2020, 6:20 am
Trump v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 2:11 pm
The Dutch court's reasoning in the parallel case was consistent with the English Court (save they actually granted the relief sought, whereas Kitchin J held that the case for the declaration was arguable) (see Merck Sharpe & Dohme Manufacturing v Ratiopharm Nederland BV and others - February 13 2008 case number/docket number 288241/ HA ZA 07-1689).A new mantra for those clearing the path? [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 9:46 am
Inc. v. [read post]
15 May 2008, 10:16 am
The court referred to Perez v. [read post]
