Search for: "BREWER v. STATE" Results 281 - 300 of 559
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2012, 1:14 pm by Susan L. Nardone
The Court affirmed its broad interpretation of spoliation, citing its decision in Brewer v. [read post]
18 Mar 2012, 7:31 am by Michael Helfand
  Given all this discussion, I wanted to highlight a recent en banc decision by the Supreme Court of Missouri, Brewer v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am by Ronald Collins
Brewer, The United States a Christian Nation (1905) Louis Dembitz Brandeis, The Jewish Problem, How to Solve It  (1915 & 1919) William H. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 3:07 am by sally
Supreme Court W (Algeria) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 8 (7 March 2012) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Gedeon Richter Plc v Bayer Pharma AG [2012] EWCA Civ 235 (07 March 2012) Miah & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 261 (07 March 2012) Lamichhane v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 260 (07 March 2012) Zieleniewski v Scheyd… [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 9:19 am by Jon Sands
Brewer, No. 12-15381 (2-28-12) (per curiam by McKeown, Berzon and Rawlinson).Editorial note: This is an Az FPD caseThe State intends to execute petitioner on March 8th. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 5:18 am
” The court then quoted United States Supreme Court Justice Brewer’s statement in Wheeler v United States, 159 US 523, that "The decision of this question rests primarily with the trial judge [or hearing officer], who sees the proposed [child] witness, notices his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, as well as his understanding of the obligations of an oath. [read post]
24 Feb 2012, 1:31 pm by WIMS
As the Court said in Brewer-Elliott, 'It is not for a State by courts or legislature, in dealing with the general subject of beds or streams, to adopt a retroactive rule for determining navigability which . . . would enlarge what actually passed to the State, at the time of her admission, under the constitutional rule of equality here invoked.' 260 U. [read post]