Search for: "STEWART v. STATE" Results 141 - 160 of 2,240
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Aug 2021, 7:40 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Perhaps it’s stating the obvious, but it can’t hurt to have reminders of this. [read post]
23 Aug 2021, 12:01 pm by James Trusty
Last week’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in U.S. v. [read post]
22 Aug 2021, 4:54 pm by INFORRM
Stewart v Clarke [2021] WASC 285 – an application to strike out a defence in a defamation case in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. [read post]
12 Aug 2021, 11:49 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Examples of overt disruption: Stewart v. [read post]
28 Jul 2021, 10:01 am by S S
Mr Berry was represented by Alice Irving  of Doughty Street Chambers and instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors. [read post]
18 Jul 2021, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
  The full judgment in the case of Robert Stewart Moore and Kayla Moore v Sacha Noam Baron Cohen, Case 1:19-cv-04977-JPC is available here [pdf]. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Ron DeSantis and a panel of scientists were discussing COVID, because it "contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19″—the scientists apparently stated that children should not wear masks, and the CDC calls for children age 2 and above to wear masks.[57] But as recently as August 2020 the World Health Organization took a different view for 2-to-5-year-olds (which it said shouldn't… [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 12:18 pm by Christiana Wayne
The Supreme Court upheld Arizona voting restrictions in Brnovich v. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
First, there is a lot of new material regarding the “loyal denominator” issue (see here and here): whether the former Confederate states were to be included in the Article V total of states of which three fourths were required to ratify an amendment, or whether (as I think) only three fourths of the states represented in Congress were required, because rebel states’ Article V naysaying power, like their Article I right to be… [read post]