Search for: "People v. Gardner" Results 141 - 160 of 226
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
The trial tested a rarely used criminal statute meant to ensure that people comply with congressional subpoenas. [read post]
The coronavirus pandemic has heightened the importance of ballot collection, as a record number of people will vote absentee in this year’s election. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 1:22 am by Melina Padron
Meanwhile, Carl Gardner wondered whether the UK government is really “on the brink” of success in Strasbourg, as claimed in an article featured in the Telegraph. [read post]
27 Aug 2023, 3:56 pm by Andrew Warren
The statute covers a very wide variety of federal officers and people acting under the direction of federal officers–including elected officials, federal civil employees, federal law enforcement officers, judges, postal workers, military officers, and more. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 10:59 pm by Graeme Hall
Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6 (9 February 2011): Supreme Court updates Pinnock (article 8 and council possession) judgment, re order and costs. [read post]
4 May 2010, 12:59 am by charonqc
Lord Justice Laws said: “We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 3:58 pm by Rick
The Court also notes that in United States v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 10:27 am by Charon QC
  Carl Gardner, author of The Head of Legal blog, has covered the case in detail. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 1:27 am by Adam Wagner
Many, including legal blogger Carl Gardner, argue that the European court keeps moving the goalposts. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 1:17 am by Adam Wagner
The Government argues that the will of the people is against prisoners voting and that Parliament has also expressed its strong view, albeit in a non-binding vote. [read post]
1 Oct 2006, 12:19 pm
(Oh, I know, you just apply the clear guidance of Phillips v. [read post]
1 Oct 2006, 12:19 pm by Philip Mann
(Oh, I know, you just apply the clear guidance of Phillips v. [read post]