Search for: "WELLS v. STATE" Results 61 - 80 of 74,646
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 May 2024, 5:55 am by Mutasim Ali
Second, based on the first conclusion, and as established by the ICJ in Bosnia v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Finally, the Act permits the seizure of sovereign assets of Belarus as well, if the President determines that Belarus has engaged in an act of war against Ukraine. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:16 pm by Michael Douglas
  Whilst the CISG has been part of Australian law since 1989, it is a well-known fact that India is not a CISG Contracting State. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:01 pm by Kevin
Were you in the federal courthouse in Philadelphia on Tuesday and did you manage to get a picture of the attorney who reportedly wore a Grover head during opening statements in Burns v. [read post]
To further justify deference, the court cited A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, also known as the Belmarsh 9 case, in which the English House of Lords held that deference would be given to the executive’s decision on the assessment of public emergency and the counter-measure devised after the 9/11 terrorist attack in the US. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 5:17 am by Jan von Hein
Furthermore, the Romanian procedure cannot be considered compatible with EU law, as the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights X. and Y. v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:26 am by jonathanturley
In comparison, Daniels may be the only authentic part of the entire case in New York v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm by Evan Brown
For these reasons, along with the availability of less restrictive measures, TikTok asserts the law fails intermediate scrutiny as well. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm by Evan Brown
For these reasons, along with the availability of less restrictive measures, TikTok asserts the law fails intermediate scrutiny as well. [read post]