Search for: "LaPorte v. State" Results 41 - 60 of 62
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jan 2012, 3:00 am by Louis M. Solomon
  Laporte v U.S., Case No. 09-CV-7247 (KMK) (S.D.N.Y. 2011), presents a case of the mother and natural guardian of an infant against the U.S. for failure to inform the decedent of his right to convert his federal employees group life insurance policy to an individual policy following his separation from service of law enforcement for the Drug Enforcement Administration. [read post]
30 Oct 2010, 11:19 pm by Mike
Laporte notes that this is the only court post-Schmidt to reach that conclusion. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 12:12 am by GuestPost
” And as Lord Bingham went on to note in R (on the application of Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary, the essence of breach of the peace in Howell “was to be found in violence or threatened violence”. [read post]
6 Nov 2010, 7:02 pm by Mike
Laporte agreed and found that this factual dispute precluded summary judgment. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 2:29 pm by Leanne Buckley-Thomson
  Domestic law was also consistent with the notion that state authorities have a positive duty to take steps to ensure that lawful public demonstrations can take place, the court referring in particular to the dicta of Lord Bingham in R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary [2007] 2 AC 105 and the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hall and Others [2011] 1 WLR 504. [read post]
1 Apr 2016, 10:29 am by Ad Law Defense
Jan. 7, 2016) (extending ECJ stay for an additional 180 days, until August 2016) (Laporte, J.); Swearingen v. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 12:00 am
Austin v- Metropolitan Police Commissioner was brought by a demonstrator who attended anti-capitalist protests in London in 2001. [read post]
27 May 2008, 10:06 am
Davis, No. 06-666 In the context of states/subdivisions' exemption of interest on their own bonds from their state income taxes, which are imposed on bond interest from other states, the Court rules that Kentucky's version of such a differential tax scheme does not offend the Commerce Clause. [read post]