Search for: "State v. Hartley" Results 1 - 20 of 143
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jun 2024, 8:56 pm by Béligh Elbalti
[…] Given this, and considering that the appealed decision overturned the exequatur decree of the judgment in question on the ground that the [Canadian] judgment, which recognized a judgment from the United States, was a “summary judgment” (hukm musta’jil) enforceable only in the rendering State, despite the broad wording of [the applicable provisions],[vii] which covers all judgments (kul al-ahkam) rendered in a foreign State without specifying… [read post]
7 May 2023, 11:43 am by Bill Marler
Onions were distributed to wholesalers, restaurants, and retail stores in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. [read post]
26 Feb 2023, 6:00 am by Lawrence Solum
Second, the limits imposed by Rawls' ideal of public reason do not apply to all actions by the state or even to all coercive uses of state power. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm by admin
  Ever since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert v. [read post]
8 Mar 2021, 5:13 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Long before enactment of the BCL, New York’s highest court held in Darcy v Brooklyn & N.Y. [read post]
16 Dec 2020, 12:24 am by Chukwuma Okoli
[28] Secondly, it must be stated that Nigerian courts are able to decline jurisdiction, when called upon to hear a case, if upon considering all relevant factors, they form the view that another forum exists with jurisdiction and is the more appropriate forum.[29] However, when a judgment is brought for recognition in Nigeria, Nigerian court [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 4:55 am by Wally Zimolong
Trades Council of Phila., 296 A.2d 504 (Pa. 1972) (“The Supreme Court of the United States, both before and after the Taft-Hartley (Labor-Management Relations) Act, has repeatedly held that State Courts have the power, the right and the duty to restrain violence, mass picketing and overt threats of violence, and to preserve and protect public order and safety and to prevent property damage. [read post]
12 Jul 2020, 5:40 pm by Francis Pileggi
The appeal The high court reversed, finding that, as required under the milestone Cinerama decision (Cinerama, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2020, 5:33 am by Matthew Waxman, Samuel Weitzman
Every student of national security law knows about Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 4:01 am by Administrator
There was some debate about whether or not the tree was jointly owned, since its base was across the boundary by about 9 centimetres, but the judge opted to follow Hartley and use the trunk as the defining issue. [read post]