Search for: "David v. Sullivan" Results 21 - 40 of 501
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Nov 2022, 8:11 am by Paul Horwitz
Here's the intro: The leak of the draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 10:04 pm by Rosalind English
W(Algeria) and 7 Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 898 (Jacob LJ, Sullivan LJ and Sir David Keene) 29 July 2010 – read judgment Article 6 of the Convention did not require an “irreducible minimum of information” that had to be provided to appellants in proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission about the risk they posed to national security. [read post]
Editor's Note: The following post comes to us from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, and is based on a Sullivan & Cromwell publication by David J. [read post]
20 Jan 2007, 10:18 am
" A gay NYU Law grad sent a letter to LeGal, inquiring into the organization's stance on Charney v. [read post]
20 Jan 2007, 10:18 am
" A gay NYU Law grad sent a letter to LeGal, inquiring into the organization's stance on Charney v. [read post]
14 Jun 2007, 1:15 pm
We've only skimmed Sullivan & Cromwell's latest Motion to Dismiss, filed just yesterday in the (in)famous case of Charney v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 2:49 pm by Jon Levitan
Early coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung of Reuters; Nina Totenberg and Hansi Lo Wang of NPR; Ariane de Vogue and Kate Sullivan of CNN; Pete Williams of NBC News; David Savage of The Los Angeles Times; and Adam Liptak of The New York Times. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 11:20 am by Wells C. Bennett
  Judges Merrick Garland, Thomas Griffith and David Tatel pressed Abdulrahman Abdou Abou Alghaith Suleiman’s lawyer on the petitioner’s apparent waiver of his key legal arguments, and the lawyer’s suggestion that Taliban membership cannot ever warrant detention unless one is shown to have engaged in combat against the United States. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 12:48 pm by Molly Runkle
This morning the Court heard argument in Zubik v. [read post]
12 Aug 2018, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
Under Australian law, such a novel duty of care would be considered an incoherent development in the law of negligence and would be unlikely to be recognised, following the High Court of Australia’s judgment in Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562. [read post]
3 Jun 2023, 4:14 pm by INFORRM
Since the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v Sullivan in 1964, it has been extremely difficult for plaintiffs with any public profile to sue for defamation in the United States. [read post]