Search for: "Mays v. State" Results 681 - 700 of 132,515
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Feb 2024, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
From Magistrate Judge Robert Norway's report and recommendation in Frank v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 1:02 am by INFORRM
On 14 February 2024 there will be a strike out/summary judgment application in the case of Chowdhury-v-Secretary of State for the Home Department KB-2023-003368. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 10:27 pm by Josh Blackman
And Special Counsel Robert Hur's report about President Biden's mental state very well may undermine his election chances. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Case Background The Supreme Court is poised to resolve this circuit split in Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 11:44 am by Tobin Admin
§ 1-3-3(3) states that an “act of God” refers to “an accident produced by physical causes which are irresistible or inevitable, such as … illness. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 4:01 am by Administrator
Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 10:28 pm by Josh Blackman
That day, a motion was made to add "[t]he [V]ice-President and other Civil officers of the U. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 3:23 pm by Eric Goldman
This year, the Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion on jawboning and its implications for when Internet services may become state actors because of such government pressure. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 7:17 am by Russell Knight
Other moves between 25 and 50 miles may require a court filing to allow relocation with a child. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 4:24 am by Alessandro Cerri
 Further, the Court stated that it is an established principle of settled case-law that, as a general rule, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the expiry of the relevant time limits, and the EUIPO is not prohibited from taking account of such facts and evidence (mobile.de v EUIPO, C‑418/16 P).In this case, it was accepted by both parties that Mr Noah had submitted the first evidence of use of the Mark within the time limit set by… [read post]