Search for: "United States v. James Miller"
Results 141 - 160
of 314
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am
Today’s live blog team comprises Lucy Hayes (Olswang), Anna Phillips (Nabarro), James Gliddon (CMS), Tom Sandeman (Nabarro), Emma Boffey (CMS) and Iona Millership (Olswang). 16.00 The Lord Advocate has now concluded his submissions for today. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am
Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 5:24 am
The case is styled Secretary of State v. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 10:27 am
During his time as a teacher he has also argued a number of major cases in state and federal courts, most notably Daubert v. [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 6:26 am
United States v. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 2:40 pm
Lin, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law—Community Levers for Benefit Sharing James N. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 8:27 am
The Supreme Court would later develop obscenity laws further in Miller v. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 5:00 am
” At Summary Judgments, Eric Miller discusses the Court’s recent decision in Utah v. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
March 14, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit made an inexplicably horrible decision relating to a photographer's copyright in an image used in sex trafficking. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
March 14, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit made an inexplicably horrible decision relating to a photographer's copyright in an image used in sex trafficking. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
March 14, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit made an inexplicably horrible decision relating to a photographer's copyright in an image used in sex trafficking. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 6:06 am
In 2012, a divided United States Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 9:01 pm
’ Martin v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 12:01 am
The Supreme Court upheld the legislation in United States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 6:10 am
Louisiana, holding that the Court’s 2012 decision in Miller v. [read post]
23 Oct 2015, 9:01 am
Miller v. [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 3:12 am
At the Fed Soc Blog, James Burnham discusses United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 11:32 am
Facts: This case (Branson v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
Wiretap Act (also known as Title III) prohibits the interception of a live communication (e.g., a telephone call) only if the interception occurs in the United States; it does not prohibit or regulate wiretaps (interception) conducted abroad.[8] Similarly, the U.S. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 6:01 am
The Supreme Court of New Zealand 2004-2013© 2015 Thomson Reuters New Zealandedited by Matthew Barber and Mary-Rose Russell, Senior Lecturers in Law, Auckland University of Technology Excerpt: selections from Chapter 3: A Barrister’s Perspective by James Farmer QC [Footnotes omitted. [read post]
