Search for: "State of Utah v. Bryant" Results 1 - 20 of 24
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jul 2015, 3:07 pm by Jon Sands
  The Michael Bryants in Utah and New Mexico face the music of § 117(a), while the Bryants in Arizona play musical chairs, moving from one brutal beating to the next with virtual impunity. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 3:45 pm by Eugene Volokh
For the leading modern court opinion on whether the tort should be retained, see Fitch v. [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 9:24 pm by John A. Gallagher
 In States of Nevada; State of Texas; Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; Georgia; Indiana; Kansas; Louisiana; Nebraska; Ohio; Oklahoma; South Carolina; Utah; Wisconsin; Commonwealth of Kentucky, by and through Governor Matthew G. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 3:21 am by Amy Howe
Briefly: At the Sixth Amendment Center, David Carroll discusses Monday’s decision in United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 1:51 pm by Eugene Volokh
On Wednesday, Wisconsin filed a brief in support of Indiana; the brief was supported by the following: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, The Michigan Attorney General, and Governor Phil Bryant of the State of Mississippi. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am by Bexis
  We, of course think that's wrong under Erie - where the default should be, if a form of liability hasn't been recognized by a state court, then it should be dismissed by a federal court applying that state's law in a diversity action.ConnecticutIn Gerrity v. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 12:11 pm by INFORRM
Parliamentary privilege did not apply in this instance as Bryant later quoted from his speech in a letter to the Foreign Secretary which was published on Twitter. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
On 1 August 2022, judgment was handed down in Wright v McCormack [2022] EWHC 2068 (QB) by Chamberlain J. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
Ct. 649 (2006), denial of habeas petition by district court is affirmed where the state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm by Bexis
 At least the state of the art at the time of the plaintiff’s use applies – unknown and later discovered risks are irrelevant. [read post]