Search for: "Norris v. Air Force"
Results 1 - 6
of 6
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2024, 9:02 pm
I dissent from the Commission’s denial of a petition to amend Rule 202.5(e), our so-called gag rule.[1] This de facto rule follows from the Commission’s enforcement of its policy, adopted in 1972, that it will not “permit a defendant or respondent to consent to a judgment or order that imposes a sanction while denying the allegations in the complaint or order for proceedings. [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 9:01 am
The district court had found that the statute violated the First Amendment by forcing doctors to speak the state’s message, but the court of appeals, over four dissenting votes, reversed. [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 7:19 am
Norris, 16 U.S.C.M.A. 574, 37 C.M.R. 194 (to be admissible, must be verbatim); United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Cochrane predated the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, but in McLellan the CA held that the IT scheme was compatible with art.6 of the Convention. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
Cochrane predated the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, but in McLellan the CA held that the IT scheme was compatible with art.6 of the Convention. [read post]
21 May 2008, 2:11 pm
Department of the Air Force, No. 06-35644. [read post]
