Search for: "HOPE v STATE"
Results 1 - 20
of 16,349
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 May 2024, 10:59 am
In the case, Simon v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 4:43 am
First, the UK Government has been exemplary in ensuring the “seamless continuity” of the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention throughout the uncertainties of the whole withdrawal process, as evidenced by the UK’s declarations and Note Verbale to the depositary Kingdom of the Netherlands.[17] The same applies mutatis mutandis to the HCCH 1965 Service Convention, to which all EU Member States are parties, and the HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention, which has only been ratified so… [read post]
17 May 2024, 3:00 am
The case is United States v. [read post]
16 May 2024, 12:11 pm
Broderick on August 28.[42] Most recently, in an order filed by United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on February 12, 2024, the Court addressed a pending privilege dispute over which state’s law should apply to resolve the documents.[43] Another issue was whether the attorney-client privilege between the Estate and its counsel exten [read post]
16 May 2024, 9:19 am
See Weinberger v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 7:41 am
In Sohm v. [read post]
15 May 2024, 6:32 am
In March, our team at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection—along with our co-counsel at Law Forward and Stafford Rosenbaum, LLP—settled Penebaker v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:27 am
" The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in Regan v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 7:55 am
Juliana v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 3:30 am
Hila Keren The notorious 1905 Supreme Court decision in Lochner v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 4:50 am
A “real and substantial interest” standard sounds rather favorable for an unnamed shareholder hoping to intervene in a derivative suit. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:01 am
Circuit’s application of the Fitzgerald test in Blassingame v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:07 pm
United States, and Shoop v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 12:38 pm
Related Cases: Google v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:01 pm
Randle has a history of such outbursts, which defendants sometimes deploy in hopes of getting a mistrial. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:21 am
Lam stated that the government would approach these providers according to the injunction and hoped that the providers would honour their promises. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:43 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
