Search for: "State v. Butler"
Results 481 - 500
of 947
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2015, 3:15 pm
Roach v. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 9:30 pm
Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department, R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another, ex parte Shah (1999) Nora Honkala72. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 3:10 am
Zieler and State Farm, No. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 8:46 am
Butler (1936); and before both Hughes and Roberts voted to invalidate provisions of the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 in Carter v. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 9:22 pm
This new interpretation is supported by United States v. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 10:06 am
Supreme Court case United States v. [read post]
7 Feb 2025, 6:12 am
Butler et al. v. [read post]
20 May 2024, 8:40 am
By contrast, Paul-Emile’s theory might suggest a revisionist reading of Gonzales v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 12:33 pm
Butler v. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 12:38 pm
In Butler v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:23 pm
Petrella v. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 2:59 pm
They cite U.S. v. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 9:37 am
Butler, 13-430; and Whirlpool Corp. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 11:05 am
Butler v. [read post]
24 Sep 2012, 7:02 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 8:55 am
Wash. 2007), and Butler v. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 3:34 am
However, recordings released before 1972 are protected by state-level rather than federal copyright law, so digital services argued that that royalty obligation didn't apply to pre-1972 tracks. [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 11:52 am
Minnesota State Public Defender Benjamin Butler noted that different state appellate processes last different periods of time, which could compromise the goals of uniformity and finality in retroactivity contexts -- which is where the "metaphysics" came in with Justice Breyer pressing the hypothetical question of three defendants in three separate states with appeals that take different lengths of time. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 2:40 pm
Turner noted that in Butler v. [read post]
10 Feb 2025, 3:58 am
On 9 February 2025, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the defamation action pursuant to the so-called “anti-SLAPP” provisions in section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act 1990 was granted in UM Financial Inc. v Butler, 2025 ONSC 480 (CanLII). [read post]
