Search for: "Born v. State" Results 1461 - 1480 of 4,833
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Jul 2007, 5:01 pm
Here's an excerpt from the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion in Bell v. [read post]
25 Nov 2024, 6:11 am by Ilya Somin
That broad consensus is backed by longstanding Supreme Court precedent, going back to United States v. [read post]
21 Sep 2008, 5:25 pm
In most cases, as it was in M.M., this burden would be borne by the parent as the next friend of the disabled student.Among the questions presented by the petition is whether the states, like Minnesota, may legislatively assign the burden of proof in special education administrative hearings.Details about this case from the High Court's Docket system are accessible here. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The first is Secretary of State for Health and Ors v Servier Laboratories and Ors. [read post]
24 May 2011, 10:55 pm by Maria Roche
A series of offences AP was born in Trinidad and is believed to have entered the UK in 1991, before or about his fourth birthday. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 1:12 pm by Big Tent Democrat
The GOP would, like the Dred Scott court, answer in the negative. to wit, the GOP would have it that the status of the parents of a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is determinative of whether someone born in the United States could be a citizen. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 1:53 pm by Mark Ashton
Citing the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Troxell v. [read post]
14 Jan 2020, 3:54 am by Edith Roberts
The first case on the agenda is Kelly v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:51 am by Adam Wagner
BM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 366 (05 April 2011) - Read judgment Another control order has been ruled unlawful and quashed by the court of appeal, on the basis that the evidence relied upon to impose it was “too vague and speculative”. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 2:00 am by John Day
Newspaper Printing Corporation, [147 S.W.2d 406 (Tenn. 1941)] (holding that it was not libelous to state that the plaintiff had opposed a job application because the applicant was a foreign-born Jew). [read post]