Search for: "Rodgers v. Rodgers"
Results 321 - 340
of 474
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Oct 2016, 11:10 am
Ultreras, 295 P.3d 1020 (Kan. 2013); Rodgers v. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 11:10 am
Ultreras, 295 P.3d 1020 (Kan. 2013); Rodgers v. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 8:09 am
w Rodgers v. [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 9:14 pm
§ 851, however, continues, as shown in the Sixth Circuit's opinion in United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 11:43 am
Rodgers, 12-382 (state-on-top), Burt v. [read post]
18 Jan 2010, 9:29 am
HELD: Appeal dismissed (Lords Hope, Rodger, Walker, and Brown dissenting). [read post]
9 May 2012, 2:54 pm
Rodgers, 204 S.W.3d 836, 842 (Tex. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 3:49 pm
State v. [read post]
15 Mar 2024, 11:42 am
Zhang v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 5:18 am
Casey Rodgers. [read post]
19 Jun 2016, 2:34 pm
” Notably, Lord Rodger was looking at the legislation itself when seeking to draw the line, rather than its broader policy. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 10:42 am
Rodgers, 2006 U.S. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 1:17 pm
In Grover Gaming v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 10:45 pm
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights R (S) v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 5:05 am
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:43 am
Lords Phillips and Brown (with whom Lord Rodger agrees) dissent and hold that because the appellants would have been lawfully detained the Secretary of State is not liable to them in false imprisonment: [319]-[334], [343]-[360]. [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 6:49 am
Lord Rodger delivers a separate judgment, agreeing with Lord Hope but adding observations of his own. [read post]
8 Sep 2017, 10:23 am
Russell Spivak summarized the Second Circuit’s opinion in Doe v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 10:00 pm
Famous examples are R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p Kebilene [2000] 2 AC 326 , R (L) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2010] 1 AC 410 and Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:20 pm
Prisoners (as in Keenan v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 913),conscripts (Álvarez Ramón v Spain (application no 51192/99) 3 July 2001) and mental patients (Herczegfalvy v Austria (1992) 15 EHRR 437) are in a different position because the deprivation of liberty imparts more responsibility on the authorities concerned to ensure that any consequent suicidal ideation is properly dealt with. [read post]
