Search for: "State of Maine v. Thomas" Results 161 - 180 of 1,098
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2008, 1:07 pm
Second, the United States Supreme Court finally released its decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2007, 8:03 am
Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 4:10 am by DR PAUL DALY, QUEENS' COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE
As Lord Carnwath concluded after his illuminating discussion of the standard required of planning reasons (at paras 35-42), the question will be “whether the information so provided by the authority leaves room for ‘genuine doubt … as to what (it) has decided and why’” (at para 42, citing Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 263). [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 7:19 am by J. Michael Goodson Law Library
Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Georgia v. [read post]
4 May 2023, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
G expressed disagreement with the core of ISL—that elected state legislatures were freed of the state constitutions that created those very legislatures by virtue of something in the federal Constitution. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 9:01 pm by John Dean
While there is a so-called “political question” doctrine, first established in Luther v. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 3:39 pm by Josh Blackman
” (To support the nationwide injunction, Washington argued that immigration law had to be uniform; ironically, the state had opposed this exact argument in United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 5:33 am
  As a result, the plaintiffs in Ouellette (pharmacies in Maine whose ox had been gored) argued that Maine’s state statute was preempted. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 3:13 pm by Mark Walsh
He then announces that the Chief Justice has the main dissent (joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas), that Scalia and Thomas have their own dissents, each of which is signed by the other, and that Justice Samuel A. [read post]
6 May 2014, 12:00 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
Keyes noted that:(1) the machete was not mentioned in any discovery, including the offense report, witness statements, or Thomas’s medical records related to the robbery; (2) the machete’s existence came to light only after defense counsel observed the machete among the State’s exhibits at trial, not as a result of any voluntary act by the prosecutor; (3) the State had possession of the machete for more than one month prior to trial; and (4) the… [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 8:01 am by Thomas Kaufman
By Thomas Kaufman  (follow me on Twitter) On June 4, 2012, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Two, issued Iskanian v. [read post]