Search for: "Collins v. THE STATE" Results 1781 - 1800 of 2,356
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2020, 3:00 am by Amy Howe
Less than two weeks after the justices issued their decision in Seila Law, the justices granted review in Collins v. [read post]
15 Sep 2024, 1:36 pm by Tobias Lutzi
On the basis of case law in England and the U.S. involving private parties, Collins argued that the principle of comity has often been misused in favour of the interests of the forum state. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 5:30 am by INFORRM
On 16 December 2021 Collins Rice J heard an application in the case of Spano v De Souza. [read post]
26 May 2019, 7:48 am by Sarah Grant
The second covers the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Pepper v. [read post]
26 May 2019, 7:48 am by Sarah Grant
The second covers the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Pepper v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 4:56 pm by INFORRM
In DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 Lord Bingham said: Section 127(1)(a) does of course interfere with a person’s right to freedom of expression. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 9:59 pm by Matthew Flinn
In DPP v Collins [2006] 1 WLR 2223 Lord Bingham said: Section 127(1)(a) does of course interfere with a person’s right to freedom of expression. [read post]
5 Feb 2017, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
Last week in the Courts On Tuesday 31 January 2017, Warby J heard the compensation application in the long running case of Barron v Collins. [read post]
11 Jan 2020, 5:48 am by Joel R. Brandes
Civil Rights Law section 65 was amended to provide that any person may elect to resume the use of a former middle name upon divorce or annulment and that the state shall not impose a fee to change the middle name on a state identifying document due to a change in marital status. [read post]
15 May 2022, 4:48 pm by INFORRM
On 12 May 2022, there were hearings in the cases of Lee -v- Brown before Collins Rice J and MPL -v- WSZ before Saini J. [read post]
14 Jun 2015, 10:23 pm by Patricia Salkin
Andrew Collins, a Planner II for the Department, presented the request for approval, stating that the project met “all of the standards of the UDO and base zoning” and that it was developed under the property’s existing entitlements; the Commission voted unanimously to approve the request. [read post]
13 Feb 2019, 7:31 pm by Jean O'Grady
The case is currently before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [read post]