Search for: "Rodgers v. State" Results 41 - 60 of 327
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Mar 2010, 10:00 am by Rosalind English
He had successfully resisted an extradition order sought by the United States on the grounds that price-fixing in the UK was not illegal (Norris v United States (2008) UKHL 16, (2008) 1 AC 920). [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 3:09 am by AIDAN WILLS MATRIX
Lord Rodger was not advancing a legal presumption which applied in all circumstances and, in referring to this passage, Tugendhat J was doing no more than stating that, while some members of the public equate suspicion with guilt, most would not [33]. [read post]
1 May 2013, 10:29 am by Gregory Forman
Two years after the United States Supreme Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court in Turner v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 12:30 am by Adam Wagner
HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 (07 July 2010) - Read Judgment The Supreme Court has ruled that the government’s “Anne Frank” policy of sending back gay refugees to their home countries where they feared persecution is unlawful as it breached their human rights.. [read post]
6 Aug 2017, 4:42 pm by INFORRM
Lord Rodger was not advancing a legal presumption which applied in all circumstances and, in referring to this passage, Tugendhat J was doing no more than stating that, while some members of the public equate suspicion with guilt, most would not [33]. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 4:25 pm by Howard Bashman
” And Jack Rodgers of Courthouse News Service reports that “State’s Bid to Skirt Drug-Pricing Preemption Put to High Court Test. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 2:50 am by Mary L. Dudziak
  Legal history-related panels include:ThursdayConfiguring the Cold War: Constructive Courtroom Narratives in Dennis et al v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 2:30 pm by Erin Miller
The following essay for our thirty-day series on John Paul Stevens is by Rodger D. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 7:00 pm by R.J. MacReady
C'est la vie.PD-1263-08, Rodger Eugene Mansfield, Jr. v. [read post]