Search for: "State v. Pierson" Results 21 - 40 of 72
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jun 2018, 6:43 am by Joanna Schwartz
When the Supreme Court first announced that executive officers were entitled to qualified immunity in Pierson v. [read post]
31 Jan 2018, 6:00 am by Julia Solomon-Strauss, Stephen Szrom
The next session of the military commission in United States v. al-Nashiri is currently scheduled to begin Feb. 12. [read post]
8 Mar 2017, 1:19 pm by Lisa Daniels
Leibowitz then proposes a method by which the defense can destroy material obtained outside of discovery, while preserving any exculpatory or Brady material, by employing the framework used in United States v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 2:29 am by NCC Staff
Click Here To Watch Video: http://library.fora.tv/2016/04/13/consource_harlan_institute_virtual_supreme_court_debate_final This year, the competition focused on Fisher v. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 11:12 pm by Kevin
But he is probably most famous—well, let’s be honest, he isn’t famous—best-known for dissenting in Pierson v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 1:42 pm
Michel Pierson Holdings: (1) The conversion of preferred stock to cash in connection with a cash-out merger does not violate the redemption provisions of the preferred stock, when the transaction at issue does not constitute a redemption. (2) The conversion of preferred stock to cash in connection with a cash-out merger does not violate the provisions of the preferred stock that establish a limitation upon the right of preferred stockholders to convert their stock. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 1:07 pm by Daily Record Staff
Criminal procedure — Motion to suppress evidence — Statement to police Following a trial in the Circuit Court for Talbot County, a jury convicted Appellant Bradford Pierson Lambert of distribution of heroin. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 5:41 pm by INFORRM
As Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Pierson [1998] AC 539: A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to authorise the doing of acts by the donee of the power which adversely affect the legal rights of the citizen or the basic principles on which the law of the United Kingdom is based unless the statute conferring the power makes it clear that such was the intention of Parliament. [read post]