Search for: "O'Brien v. State" Results 21 - 40 of 158
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jul 2012, 2:11 am by Blog  Editorial
In relation to control, no material difference as regards the position of the state. 15.07: Thomas de la Mare QC takes the Court through the cases of Barnado and Mallin v Clark.  [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 6:17 am by Michael M. O'Hear
Just in time for exam-writing law professors comes the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 2:45 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
A restraint order was made against him, which he disobeyed by fleeing to the United States. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 1:35 pm by Anna Christensen
Ratliff, Hui, O’Brien, and Barber v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:26 am by NL
Paula O'Brien v Jacqueline Jones & Andrew Alexander (T/A Belvoir Huntingdon). [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 2:26 am by NL
Paula O'Brien v Jacqueline Jones & Andrew Alexander (T/A Belvoir Huntingdon). [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 3:06 pm by Tom Lamb
O'Brien in his opening statement as "a disfiguring, a disabling, and a life-changing disease". [read post]
10 Oct 2012, 1:15 pm by Micah Gates, RWS, WDTN
O’Brien, Justice Breyer indicated that he now does accept Apprendi and might now vote in favor of overturning Harris.Earlier this year in United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 6:52 am by Matt Sundquist
Humanitarian Law Project and United States v. [read post]
11 Sep 2013, 4:18 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 Oakland Circuit Judge Colleen O'Brien relied on the now-reversed Court of Appeals decision in the People v Koon case, which ruled that even drivers with medical marijuana cards violated the motor vehicle code when driving with THC in their bloodstream. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 2:02 am by Laura Sandwell
On Monday 19 until Wednesday 21 November 2012 in Courtroom 2 is the three day hearing of the linked appeals of R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice & Anor and R (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice & The Parole Board.   [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 2:15 pm by Raffaela Wakeman
The plaintiffs have two main arguments, which they summarize: The Act improperly authorizes that civilians in the United States be detained indefinitely by the military, that they be tried by military commission or military court and that they may be subject to removal to other jurisdictions in violation of the Amendments V and VI of the Constitution. [read post]
24 May 2010, 8:19 am by Erin Miller
O’Brien No. 08-661, American Needle v. [read post]