Search for: "North Carolina State Bar v. Hall"
Results 21 - 40
of 62
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
Campaign Funds for Judges Warp Criminal Justice, Study Finds New York Times – Adam Liptak | Published: 6/1/2020 In Gideon v. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 3:00 am
His high-profile cases include the “trial of the century,” otherwise known as United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 6:30 am
While not of the same scale as the Tammany Hall operation, this behavior by nineteenth century politicos was also similar to the election fraud that occurred in North Carolina in 2018 in which a Republican operative forged absentee ballots and engaged in other malfeasance in a very close congressional election.[9] There are numerous other parallels between our current situation and that of past elections. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 3:00 am
That is a bar the majority of field has not hit and is not on track to do so. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 6:00 pm
Shackelford cited as support the North Carolina Supreme Court’s determination in State v. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 8:29 am
One of them was State v. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 12:30 pm
THURSDAY The Rights Revolution in Action: The Transformation of State Institutions after the 1960sThu, 6/7: 8:00 AM—9:45 AM, Sheraton Centre Toronto, Forest Hill · Chair/Discussant—Sara Mayeux, Vanderbilt University · Ingraham v. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 1:36 pm
First, these types of entities and their attorneys need to be aware that the Fourth Circuit’s broad joint-employer test is still the law in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 1:36 pm
First, these types of entities and their attorneys need to be aware that the Fourth Circuit’s broad joint-employer test is still the law in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. [read post]
26 Sep 2017, 4:00 am
In 2003, LegalZoom received a “cease and desist” order from the North Carolina State Bar on the basis that its non-licensed “legal technicians” were actively involved in document review and preparation.[12] The Missouri Federal Court later upheld the order on a motion for summary judgment, agreeing that LegalZoom’s platform went beyond a “do-it-yourself” service and crossed the boundary of unauthorized practice.[13] The… [read post]
16 Jun 2017, 12:50 pm
TUESDAY Paper Session: Comparative History of Legal Cultures (Private Law)Tue, 6/20: 10:00 AM - 11:45 AM – Sheraton Maria Isabel Sala 455, Danubio Tower (4th Floor) · Chair—Andrés Botero Bernal, Industrial University of Santander · Discussant—Dong Jiang, Renmin University of China · A Comparison of… [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 10:36 am
The petition in North Carolina v. [read post]
24 Feb 2017, 11:51 am
” The case of Martinez-Hidalgo v. [read post]
18 Nov 2016, 7:53 am
First, Rushforth asks Judge Rubin about his history of military service, beginning with his United States Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MARSOC) at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina from early 2006 until summer 2008. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 9:30 pm
Mandy Cooper, Duke University, “A House of Cards: Familial Economic Networks and the State in Antebellum North Carolina. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 10:41 am
The Court tried in 2014, in the case of Hall v. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 6:14 am
Before he ever took his first law class, he served as his own lawyer, filing the original complaint in what is now called Shapiro v. [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 8:32 am
Arnold is admitted to practice in all state courts in North Carolina, in the United States Federal Court for the Western District of North Carolina, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, and in the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. [read post]
29 May 2015, 2:24 pm
Indiana, 14-631, which has been relisted as many times as Communist Gus Hall ran for president (four). [read post]
21 May 2015, 8:19 am
§ 2254(d)(1) when it granted habeas relief on the ground that the North Carolina state courts unreasonably applied “clearly established” law when they held that third-party religious discussions with jurors did not concern “the matter[s] pending before the jury”? [read post]
