Search for: "Freeze v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 1,304
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2016, 4:01 am by Amy Howe
United States, in which the Court held that the pretrial freeze of a criminal defendant’s untainted assets violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 5:11 am by Amy Howe
United States, holding that the pretrial freeze of a criminal defendant’s untainted assets violates the Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of choice. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 2:00 am by James Johnson
Today, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Thevarajah v Riordan and Ors. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 2:56 am by Peter Mahler
  The Zelouf Case Last month’s decision by Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich in Zelouf v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 3:42 am by Rosalind English
The purpose and effect of listing was to freeze the listed person’s assets, to place the release of any funds at the discretion of the executive, and thereby to make him a prisoner of the state. [read post]
21 Jan 2013, 7:59 am by Sheldon Toplitt
Map of South Dakota highlighting Union County (Photo credit: Wikipedia)United States District Court for the District of South Dakota Judge Karen Schreier will hear arguments from Beef Products, Inc (BPI) seeking to remand its $1.2 billion defamation suit against ABC News to state court, Reuters wire service reported.The case, Beef Products Inc. et al. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 2:01 pm by admin
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Beach Renourishment v. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 8:52 am by Louise Pearce
Jessica Joel, trainee solicitor at CMS, considers the case of JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov: Background In 2015, JSC BTA Bank brought proceedings against Mr Khrapunov, as second defendant, as it considered he had assisted his father-in-law, Mr Ablyazov to hide or dissipate his assets, in breach of a worldwide freezing order and a supporting receivership order. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Amendment to Civil Service Law §167(8) does not violate the compensation clause for certain judges set out in Article VI, §25[a] of the State Constitution Bransten v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 08168, Court of AppealsIn 2011 the State-employee unions, in the course of collective bargaining, agreed to a percentage reduction to the State's employer contributions for health insurance to avoid layoff, salary freezes and unpaid… [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 5:24 am
Nifong Says He Didn't Intentionally Break Rules [Associated Press] North Carolina State Bar v. [read post]