Search for: "State v. Tate" Results 221 - 240 of 465
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 May 2017, 4:10 am by Edith Roberts
Hodges doesn’t require the state to list both married same-sex parents on their child’s birth certificate,” although “[s]tate law requires that both married opposite-sex parents be listed. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 9:08 am by Kyle Persaud
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Tate v. [read post]
13 Oct 2021, 9:08 am by Kyle Persaud
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Tate v. [read post]
16 Jan 2023, 2:01 am by Matrix Law
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 20/01/23) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, heard 7th December 2021… [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 4:06 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Bott & Co Solicitors v Ryanair DAC, heard 20 May 2021 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 R (on the application of O (a minor, by her litigation friend AO)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State for the Home Department) (Expedited), heard 23 and 24 June 2021 Basfar… [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 1:34 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
  The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 13/01/23) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Fearn and others v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery heard 7th December 2021… [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 4:32 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Bott & Co Solicitors v Ryanair DAC, heard 20 May 2021 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 R (on the application of O (a minor, by her litigation friend AO)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (on the application of The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State for the Home Department) (Expedited), heard 23 and 24 June 2021 Basfar… [read post]
20 Jul 2009, 9:34 am
  Less than a year later, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's death penalty in People v. [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 5:16 pm
We're talking bare possibility here, but in this case, that's enough.You see, back in 2007, in a case called State v. [read post]
13 Jun 2022, 2:56 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
  The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 15/6/22) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Ors, heard 4 May 2021 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Basfar v Wong, heard 13th-14th October … [read post]
6 Jun 2022, 3:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: (As of 08/06/22) The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Ors, heard 4 May 2021 East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Flowers and Ors, heard 22 June 2021 Basfar v Wong, heard 13th-14th October … [read post]
23 Apr 2023, 2:42 pm by Russell Knight
“[S]tate courts are the ultimate expositors of state law. [read post]
19 Nov 2017, 10:18 am by Garrett Hinck
And Orin Kerr discussed four considerations to supplement his amicus brief in Carpenter v. [read post]