Search for: "David Faires v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 2,457
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2023, 2:27 am
Consider the case of Bare v AL. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 12:53 am
Beijing opposed the move, stating “we urge the UK side to stop political manipulation and provide a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for the normal operation of Chinese companies in the UK. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 7:30 am
But it is totally fair to note that where this line is drawn is questionable. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 2:30 pm
Fair enough. [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 4:20 pm
On Tuesday, in Nuziard v. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 8:32 am
The test in Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v. [read post]
4 Jun 2023, 6:30 am
[1] See David Schleicher, In A Bad State 145-46 (2023).[2] David Schleicher, In A Bad State 145 (2023).[3] 418 U.S. 717 (1974).[4] See Christopher J. [read post]
30 May 2023, 12:09 pm
However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. [read post]
15 May 2023, 9:30 pm
An example is Ciraolo v. [read post]
11 May 2023, 9:00 pm
Putting aside rights that arise from contractual or other state-law guarantees of academic freedom, if a public employee is speaking (even on matters of public concern) while on the job, qua employee, then under the 2006 Supreme Court Garcetti v. [read post]
4 May 2023, 9:51 pm
Kelo was an important decision that drew a massive political backlash (over 80% of the public opposed the ruling, and 45 states enacted eminent domain reform laws in reaction to it) and remains contentious to this day. [read post]
1 May 2023, 7:46 am
The Home Office rejected the request, stating that it is not in the public interest to disclose any of the requested information. [read post]
30 Apr 2023, 9:00 pm
That mattered for the 2010 congressional-election cycle.An even more dramatic example is United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2023, 7:00 am
In Brown v. [read post]
12 Apr 2023, 2:24 am
The court has to be satisfied of the following: that there was material disclosure exchanged by the parties, that each party has had the opportunity to seek legal advice, that there was no fraud, duress or misrepresentation in reaching the pre-nuptial agreement, both parties were in a calm, rational state; and that the agreement was fundamentally fair at the time it was entered into. [read post]
30 Mar 2023, 6:33 pm
People v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 8:28 am
Flores v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 9:21 am
Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 3:08 am
Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. [read post]
17 Mar 2023, 5:48 pm
For example, in Jones v. [read post]
