Search for: "Law v. State" Results 281 - 300 of 172,696
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Intrusion upon seclusion claim: The court referred to Jones v Tsige and stated that the tort required intentional intrusion upon the seclusion of another of his private affairs. [read post]
9 May 2024, 6:05 am by Adam Klasfeld
“The Court of Appeals didn’t lay out any new law, they simply ruled on the facts of that case. [read post]
9 May 2024, 5:55 am by Mutasim Ali
Second, based on the first conclusion, and as established by the ICJ in Bosnia v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:05 pm by Tyler Hoguet
For example, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
On April 24, 2024, President Biden signed into law the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act (the Act) as part of a broader foreign aid package providing funding to Taiwan, Ukraine, and Israel. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:16 pm by Michael Douglas
  In short, private international law rules include choice of law rules (where a sales contract is governed by a CISG State’s law because of a choice of law clause) and conflict of laws rules (where, absent party choice of law, the forum’s rules indicate that a CISG State’s law is to apply). [read post]
8 May 2024, 2:00 pm
There's a lot about this Ninth Circuit opinion that's not surprising at all.It's a lawsuit brought by some gun owners in California who don't like that the Legislature recently passed a law that says that identifying information about who has a concealed carry permit or who buys various ammunition -- which is already collected by the state and disseminated to a plethora of law enforcement officials -- also gets to be used (though kept confidential) by… [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:58 pm by Eugene Volokh
Doe alleges that he was the winner of the Maine State Lottery,  that Ms. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:28 pm by NARF
United States (Treaty Rights; "Bad Men" Provision) Reges v. [read post]
To further justify deference, the court cited A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, also known as the Belmarsh 9 case, in which the English House of Lords held that deference would be given to the executive’s decision on the assessment of public emergency and the counter-measure devised after the 9/11 terrorist attack in the US. [read post]