Search for: "Little v State" Results 161 - 180 of 26,833
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jul 2024, 6:11 am by Binaifer Nowrojee
This is part of a remarkable trend with the ICJ hearing a flurry of cases with a human rights focus, from the Gambia v. [read post]
25 Jul 2024, 4:12 am by Jack Bogdanski
It feels a little colonial, like Californians are imposing their desire to try this out on Oregon rather than their own state. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 9:48 am by centerforartlaw
The second part of the judgment then focused on whether such violation was justified by the unique qualities of the property in question, the peculiarities of its discovery, or the Italian State’s interest in preserving the integrity of its cultural patrimony. [read post]
24 Jul 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Across the interbellum era, Americans not only debated the Constitution, laid down vital precedents, and helped fashion the framework of constitutional law; they not only claimed that the Constitution carried certain meanings or led to certain results on federal power, state police power, Cherokee autonomy, or the fate of slavery; in a broader sense, they confronted the problem of constitutional inheritance itself. [read post]
23 Jul 2024, 12:08 pm by Dylan Gibbs
The state can’t be reckless about Charter rights.Other cases would be rare, but claimants can also argue the state acted in bad faith or abused its process. [read post]
21 Jul 2024, 9:06 pm by Dru Stevenson
In May, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in National Rifle Association v. [read post]
21 Jul 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
Choi at University of Michigan Law School, and Geeyoung Min at Michigan State University College of Law. [read post]
21 Jul 2024, 1:26 am by Frank Cranmer
Saïla Ouald-Chaib, Strasbourg Observers: Mikyas v Belgium: one more ‘headscarf case’ that manifestly fails to acknowledge applicants’ concerns. [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 9:37 am by Joshua Fox and Tony S. Martinez
”  GC Memorandum 24-05 further states that the Board has not sought injunctive relief without a “full evaluation and careful consideration of . . . difficult questions of law” and, thus, little change to the Board’s usual procedures is required. [read post]