Search for: "Mays v. State" Results 661 - 680 of 129,599
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jul 2014, 2:11 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
The respondent has a strict policy not to provide legal funding in criminal proceedings abroad, even where the death penalty may apply. [read post]
24 May 2017, 2:22 pm by Aurora Barnes
The post Petitions to watch | Conference of May 25 appeared first on SCOTUSblog. [read post]
2 Jul 2021, 4:27 am by Peter Groves
In Secretary of State for Health v Servier Laboratories Ltd, where the loss arose because there were no generic equivalents of the invalidly-patented drug, the Supreme Court held that the "dealing requirement" laid down in OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1, which states that the unlawful means should have affected the third party’s freedom to deal with the claimant, is a necessary element of the tort. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 10:32 am by Frank Pasquale
Sebelius may be the undoing of the challenge in King v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:44 am by Edward Craven, Matrix Chambers.
This was the riddle that recently occupied a nine-judge panel of the Supreme Court in R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18. [read post]
21 May 2012, 7:49 pm by appealattorneylaw
This is a follow up to my last post, where I discussed an opinion issued by the United States Supreme Court, Missouri v. [read post]
1 Jul 2016, 8:11 am by Daily Record Staff
 On May 6, 7, and 8, 2015, a jury trial was held in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 2:00 pm by Stephen Thorn
  The state permitting authority may alter the terms of the permit pursuant to comments from the business or the public (or may fail to address comments that should have been addressed). [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 1:27 am
Otherwise, the grant merely expresses the grantor's confidence that the grantee will use the property so far as may be reasonable and practicable to effect the purpose of the grant.The Will did not include language indicating that, if the State did not comply with the farming provision, the grant to the State would become void and revert to Hinebaugh. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 1:57 pm by Paul Ohm
E.g., Smith, 442 U.S., at 742; United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 1:16 pm by WIMS
      The district court held that the United States' condemnation extinguished California's public trust on the entire parcel, and that the 27.54 acres which are filled can be conveyed to a private party free of any trust, but that the 4.88 acres that remained tidelands at the time of the taking are now subject to a Federal public trust and may not be conveyed to a private party. [read post]