Search for: "Cole v. State"
Results 301 - 320
of 1,126
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2018, 4:32 am
For The Washington Post, Ellen Nakashima reports that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 1:20 pm
Al-Nashiri is accused of planning the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. [read post]
21 Feb 2018, 12:03 pm
Kelsey-Hayes, 854 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2017) (retirees prevailed); and Cole v. [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 11:00 am
The military commission in United States v. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 2:22 pm
Contact us online or by phone at 519-821-5465 to schedule a consultation [1] R v Cole The post Workplace Privacy Issues appeared first on Peter A. [read post]
15 Feb 2018, 2:22 pm
Contact us online or by phone at 519-821-5465 to schedule a consultation [1] R v Cole The post Workplace Privacy Issues appeared first on Peter A. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 11:54 am
In response to this argument, the Appeals Court stated, “In [Commonwealth v.] [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 9:22 am
The following post is by Mark V. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 6:00 am
The next session of the military commission in United States v. al-Nashiri is currently scheduled to begin Feb. 12. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 4:00 am
R v Plant, [1993] 3 SCR 281 at para 45; R v Tessling, 2004 SCC 67, [2004] 3 SCR 432 at para 32; R v Cole, 2012 SCC 53, [2012] 3 SCR 34 at paras 39-58; R v Patrick, 2009 SCC 17, [2009] 1 SCR 579 at para 27. 5 Supra note 4 at para 27. 6 2014 SCC 43, [2014] 2 SCR 212 at para 18. 7 Plant, supra note 4 at para 20. 8 Ibid. 9 Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. 10 2010 SCC 55 at para 38, [2010] 3 SCR 211, per… [read post]
19 Jan 2018, 11:38 am
Legal Basis The WPR letter’s stated legal authorities for the armed conflict against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, associated forces, and, since August 2014, the Islamic State (ISIS), are the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF), the president’s Article II commander-in-chief power, and his “constitutional and statutory authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 9:01 pm
This objection is mostly misguided.In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 4:50 pm
Lambert v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 4:50 pm
Lambert v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 11:25 am
States that legalized marijuana and enacted regulations regarding its use were less of a threat, according to Cole. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 8:48 am
The threat posed by the latter is unique because “when equipped with sophisticated surveillance technologies, the state may be tempted to embark on forward-looking, ‘fishing expedition[s] in the hope of uncovering evidence of crime. [read post]
4 Jan 2018, 8:17 am
Such concerns are likely overstated, as Alabama argued in its powerful Gonzales v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 6:34 am
Sarnoff, BIO v. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 3:08 pm
., married-student housing at a religious college) would better be viewed not as implicating compelled speech, but instead, as David Cole suggested at argument, as raising the question whether the Court would, or might, craft additional exceptions to the general free exercise doctrine of Employment Division v. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 9:01 am
Other State Registered IA. [read post]
