Search for: "State v. Sample"
Results 2001 - 2020
of 4,544
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Feb 2012, 5:55 am
In Wang v. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 7:34 am
People v. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 3:41 am
Private copying levy systems are not harmonised in the EU, and some Member States do not even collect levies or decided to get rid of them altogether. [read post]
18 May 2009, 9:42 pm
Witness the decision of the First Department of New York's Appellate Division in Speranza v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 9:47 am
In City of Seattle v. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 9:47 am
In City of Seattle v. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 1:18 pm
In Jaimez v. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 11:08 am
Pegasystems, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 7:56 am
., LLC v. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 9:48 am
In HSBC v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 1:02 pm
This happened in State v. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 7:18 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Apr 2008, 11:24 pm
Some agencies require informed consent to get DNA, but it's legal to lie to get DNA samples, DNA in someone's trashcan is fair game, and you don't need probable cause to take a DNA sample under current law, the gathering was told in a seminar titled DNA 101.The legal eagles among you may be interested that the Supreme Court recently granted cert (meaning they agreed to hear the case) in Melendez-Diaz v. [read post]
21 Dec 2016, 12:06 pm
State v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 10:33 pm
One, in Gonzales v. [read post]
19 Jul 2024, 6:49 pm
(Goulet V, King LA, Vaillant V, de Valk H. [read post]
7 May 2013, 2:03 pm
Because that issue remains for trial, the Court declined MBIA’s request to extrapolate breach findings within a loan sample to the entire pool of loans at issue. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 10:46 am
The NJCUMMA had expressly excluded employment accommodations for medical marijuana users.[1] However, in Wild v. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 10:46 am
The NJCUMMA had expressly excluded employment accommodations for medical marijuana users.[1] However, in Wild v. [read post]
20 Apr 2014, 4:55 pm
The appeals court pointed out that the DOL’s case would depend on the information received from 150 other state employees who had consented to the disclosure of their identities, and that the state employer already had this information in its possession (Perez v United States District Court, Tacoma, April 18, 2014, Trott, S). [read post]
