Search for: "In re C.J."
Results 161 - 180
of 361
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2013, 3:34 am
Stephen Allen, Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London Speaker 1: Jessie Hohmann: The Past is the Future: The Uses of History by the International Legal Left Speaker 2: Surabhi Ranganathan, International Law between Philosophy and Anxiety: Two (Re)Constructions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Speaker 3: Richard Collins, Classical Positivism and the Problem of Legal Autonomy in Modern International Law Group… [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 7:01 am
While McLachlin C.J. and Rothstein and Cromwell JJ disagreed on the scope of the deemed trust, they accepted the logic of paramountcy, as did the two dissenters. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 11:46 am
Tenn. 1963) (Taylor, C.J.) [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 12:03 pm
The current nine-member circuit is important in the context of petitions for en banc (re)hearing. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 5:00 am
In re Am. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 5:00 am
In re Am. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 8:03 am
P.A.S.C. re-enrolled in school in Nayarit. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 9:30 am
Yes, that is C.J. [read post]
26 Sep 2012, 2:59 am
At the end, the decision looked like this: “ANSTEAD, C.J., and PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur.ANSTEAD, C.J., concurs specially with an opinion, in which PARIENTE and QUINCE, JJ., concur. [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 10:44 am
Justice Kennedy wrote the lead opinion in Alvarez joined by only three other members of the Court (Roberts, C.J., Ginsberg, and Sotomayor). [read post]
21 Jul 2012, 6:36 pm
And maybe for ease of understanding and, please, this is just for the example, if we consider 300 days as appropriate confinement but we know the hundred days credit is there but we think that the 300 days confinement should be actual confinement so we bump it up to 400 days because we know we’re going to subtract a hundred days; is that legal for us to do that? [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 6:52 am
Per McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Abella, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.: The Copyright Board’s conclusion that the Internet delivery of a permanent copy of a video game containing musical works amounted to a “communication” under s. 3(1)(f) of the Copyright Act should be set aside. [read post]
7 Jul 2012, 10:40 am
READER BOOK PLUG: Reader C.J. [read post]
Texas Supreme Court rejects notice by publication for many parental-termination cases [Jul. 6, 2012]
6 Jul 2012, 10:24 am
Notice by Publication: Maybe not the best idea in parental-termination cases In re E.R., J.B., E.G., and C.L., children, No. 11-0282 (DB) (Jefferson, C.J.) [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 8:55 am
., In re Synchronoss Sec. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 5:21 am
The issue of finality was drawn from the dicta of Murray C.J. in the Supreme Court in A, set out in pertinent part above. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
The following case is published below with my own commentary added in the blue fields. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 10:58 am
If you're a libertarian aching to claw back Congress's commerce clause authority to pre-New Deal days, this is your opinion. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 8:39 am
"The moment you start a recall," he told me, "you're playing their game by their rules. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 3:10 pm
It was governed not by the rule of law, but by the rule of Judge C.J. [read post]
