Search for: "State v. Royal" Results 141 - 160 of 1,663
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Aug 2017, 1:37 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Royal (Jurisdiction; Reservation Diminishment; Criminal Law)Window Rock Unified School District v. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 1:37 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Royal (Jurisdiction; Reservation Diminishment; Criminal Law)Window Rock Unified School District v. [read post]
3 Oct 2019, 10:55 pm
" Associated Newspapers have stated that they "categorically deny that the duchess's letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 2:16 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
She stated that the Secretary of State did not seriously consider the most cost-effective form which such an inquiry might take or the “bigger picture” in that it was in the public interest to properly inquire about events of this magnitude and the importance of setting the record straight as well as providing truth to the relatives and survivors, Harrison v UK applied. [read post]
25 Sep 2010, 9:16 am by Dave
The procedural safeguards available to the individual will be especially material in determining whether the respondent State has, when fixing the regulatory framework, remained within its margin of appreciation. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 1:54 am
The latest is Case T 581/13 Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM - Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB), a decision rendered last Thursday by the General Court of the European Union in another POLO-related dispute, this time involving a Community trade mark (CTM) application [it seems to this Kat that the word "polo" has the same effect on brand owners as catnip has on cats -- its appeal is irresistible]. [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 8:00 am by Dan Ernst
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005]: The Belmarsh CaseRichard Clayton9. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 6:10 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Court of Appeals says the individuals do not have qualified immunity from First Amendment liability, which means the case can forge ahead.The case is Royal Crown Day Care, LLC v. [read post]
Royal Dutch Shell, manages to raise an even broader question: Are there any substantive limits to the federal government’s power to regulate matters occurring outside and having nothing do with the United States? [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Last month PR guru Max Clifford was ordered to pay the former Royal Butler Paul Burrell £5,000 compensation for the unauthorised disclosure of private information contained within a letter Mr Burrell had sent him. [read post]