Search for: "State v. Gibson" Results 321 - 340 of 1,151
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 5 Dec 2017. [read post]
24 Dec 2017, 2:00 am by Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD
• What are potential approaches for physicians, including those practicing in states where it is legal, those who receive a request for access when the practice is legal in nearby states but not in the state of practice, and those who practice in a state where it is legal but are personally opposed to physician-assisted death. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 5 Dec 2017. [read post]
15 Dec 2017, 6:13 am
Wang (Harvard Business School), on Wednesday, December 13, 2017 Tags: Airgas v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Courts have often expressed—as the Supreme Court did in United States v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 5 Dec 2017. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 1:15 pm by Mark Walsh
As we enter the courtroom for today’s argument in Christie v. [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Tuesday 5 December, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice. [read post]
2 Nov 2017, 6:23 am by Joy Waltemath
Denying the employer’s renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that discovery was necessary to make the factual determinations as to whether her preference not to be fingerprinted was a “religious belief,” whether the employer (as opposed to a governmental entity) imposed the fingerprinting requirement, and whether granting her accommodation request would have posed an undue hardship (Kaite v Altoona Student Transportation, Inc.,… [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
In this setting, states and cities argue that the anti-commandeering principle prevents the feds from requiring state and local authorities to affirmatively provide information about or access to individuals who may have committed immigration law violations.Perhaps the most important Supreme Court case on this point is Printz v. [read post]
And they also understand that the state’s ostensible goal—anti-pollution—could be more precisely accomplished by a law that is more directly tailored to the state’s purpose, a ban on littering (as the Court reasoned in Schneider v. [read post]