Search for: "Note v. U. S"
Results 21 - 40
of 4,706
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Mar 2009, 2:07 pm
Wingo, 407 U. [read post]
15 May 2011, 7:22 am
The Zawadzki v. [read post]
21 Apr 2018, 12:41 pm
S. 21 (1974)Menna v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 7:46 am
The post Moore v. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 2:36 pm
This is a brief note on a recent High Court appeal dealing with the issue of costs on withdrawn s.204 appeals (Unichi v LB Southwark 16/10/13-from a Lawtel summary, not on Bailii).The Local Authority discharged its duty towards Ms U under s.193(6)(b) of the Housing Act 1996 after she had been evicted from her temporary accommodation for rent arrears. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 2:36 pm
This is a brief note on a recent High Court appeal dealing with the issue of costs on withdrawn s.204 appeals (Unichi v LB Southwark 16/10/13-from a Lawtel summary, not on Bailii).The Local Authority discharged its duty towards Ms U under s.193(6)(b) of the Housing Act 1996 after she had been evicted from her temporary accommodation for rent arrears. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 12:48 pm
Ct. 2218, 2007) 30 U. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 6:00 am
Supreme Court dramatically altered the country’s E-commerce landscape with its decision in South Dakota v Wayfair, 585 U. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 8:09 am
It’s an interesting case in its own right as an application of U.S. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 6:52 pm
S. ___; and Espinoza v. [read post]
22 May 2017, 4:41 pm
S. 250, 258 (2006); see Rehberg v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 5:41 pm
Stuart, 547 U. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 4:00 pm
Wrapping up our belated notes on Tuesday's decisions, there is Kaley v. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 12:33 pm
S., at 830; 42 U. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 10:35 am
The case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 7:33 am
Kentucky, 559 U. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 6:28 pm
[Note: my article, Public Employee Speech, Categorical Balancing and Section 1983: A Critique of Garcetti v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 12:41 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 9:00 am
EPA 597 U. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 6:42 am
After weighing all of the problems U visa discovery might cause against the employer’s admittedly significant interest in obtaining the discovery, the Fifth Circuit ordered the district court on remand to devise an approach to U visa discovery that adequately protects the diverse and competing interests at stake in this high profile case (Cazorla v. [read post]
