Search for: "Parsons v. United States" Results 41 - 60 of 92
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Nov 2018, 3:45 am by Edith Roberts
” Sean Fine reports for the Toronto Globe and Mail that, during a public discussion with a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Elena Kagan told the audience that “[t]he partisan process for judicial nomination hearings in the United States is harmful to the Supreme Court. [read post]
9 Feb 2018, 7:30 am
This is certainly true for the ACLU’s clients in the Arizona Department of Corrections, where we represent thousands of women behind bars in a case called Parsons v. [read post]
24 May 2017, 4:35 am by Edith Roberts
At Letters Blogatory, Ted Folkman looks at the decision, noting that the opinion puts the state and federal courts in the United States “on the same page with the Special Commission of the Hague Conference, the US State Department, most if not all foreign courts, and more or less all writers on the subject. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 5:30 am
To reach its conclusion, the BIA reasoned that the Eleventh Circuit decision, United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 5:30 am
To reach its conclusion, the BIA reasoned that the Eleventh Circuit decision, United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2019, 4:54 pm by Jennifer Lynch
Illinois’ BIPA is the strongest biometric privacy law in the United States. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 6:19 am by James Bickford
United States, a capital case in which the jury foreman made many calls to news organizations and two fellow jurors during the trial.  [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 12:15 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
CMA Design Studio, P.C., 68 A.D. 3d 500, 890 N.Y.S. 2d 534 [N.Y.A.D. 1" Dept., 20091 citing to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas v. [read post]
18 Nov 2007, 9:03 pm
There is an established right under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution which prohibits the execution of one who is insane, as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Ford v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 4:54 pm by Perry Herzfeld
The Court approved United States authorities consistent with this narrow approach to the public policy exception (Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co, Inc v Société Générale De L’Industrie Du Papier, 508 F 2d 969 (2d Cir 1974); Karaha Bodas Co, LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F 3d 274 at 306 (2004)) and disapproved previous Australian authorities supporting a broader approach (Resort Condominiums International Inc… [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
In dismissing the application in DHR International, Inc a company incorporated in Delaware in the United States of America v Challis [2015] NSWSC 1567, White J found that the plaintiff failed to show that the statements in the blog were false, ‘or at least materially false’ – a key element of the tort of injurious falsehood. [read post]