Search for: "Hodges v. United States"
Results 161 - 180
of 659
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Sep 2019, 7:28 am
In England & Wales, Gina Millar (the businesswoman who brought the UK Supreme Court appeal of R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5) also raised proceedings, following the Queen’s signing of the Order in Council. [read post]
5 Sep 2019, 8:30 am
United States. [read post]
3 Sep 2019, 11:00 pm
“Tool Without A Handle: A Duty of Candor” The law and legal professional ethics require of counsel a duty of candor in the practice of law.[1] This includes a duty to not knowingly make false statements of fact, to not conceal controlling legal authority, and to not offer evidence the lawyer knows to be false.[2] These principles are considered essential to maintaining both substantive fairness for participants in the process, and trust in the integrity of the process for… [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 2:48 pm
Laird and Marbury v. [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 12:21 pm
With a new judge presiding, the military commission in United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 12:46 pm
Hodges. [read post]
9 Jun 2019, 4:26 pm
United States A jury has awarded bakery owner David Gibson damages of $11 million against Oberlin College which had accused Gibsons Bakery of having a history of racial profiling and discriminatory treatment. [read post]
31 May 2019, 6:00 am
Hodges, he excoriated at length the Lochner decision itself, its activist embrace of “courts . . . substitut[ing] their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies . . . [read post]
28 May 2019, 8:00 am
Jennifer Elisa Chapman, University of Maryland Thurgood Marshall Law Library, has posted United States v. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 6:00 am
In her scholarly paper, Professor Hodges proposes instituting a negotiation or bargaining requirement into employment contracts in order to protect employee rights in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s recent Epic Systems v. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 7:05 am
United States (2000), Rehnquist declined to expressly overrule Miranda v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 5:28 am
Brian Cordery and Claire Phipps-JonesThe UK Supreme Court today handed down its decision in Actavis v ICOS. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 8:08 am
Lord Carnwarth gave a concurring judgment in which he commented on the criticism that had been made of obiter remarks he had made in United Policyholders Group v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2016] UKPC 17 in relation in relation to the necessity for a detriment to have been suffered before a claim for substantive legitimate expectation could be made. [read post]
21 Mar 2019, 8:15 am
Moreover, in Burke v United Kingdom (App No.19807/0) 11 July 2006, the argument that there was insufficient protection of art 2 rights because a doctor might decide to withdraw CANH without being under an obligation to obtain the approval of the court was expressly rejected. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 8:10 am
The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 12:00 am
Hodges in 2015, the United States Supreme Court ended all legal prohibitions on same-sex marriages in all fifty states. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 2:37 am
The concept is still rather wooly, but the approach remains that of Lord Bingham in M v Secretary of States for Work and Pensions [2006] 2 AC 91, encapsulated by Lady Hale as “the closer the facts come to the protection of the core values of the substantive article, the more likely it is that they fall within its ambit. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:44 am
Up until this case, that position had support in domestic law (see AL (Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 42, [2008] 4 All ER 1127; R (Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29, [2006] 1 All ER 487; and R (S) v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39, [2004] 4 All ER 193). [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 2:07 pm
In 1987, Marshall was the deciding vote for the 5-4 majority in United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 9:21 am
In Washington v. [read post]
