Search for: "State v. P. G." Results 201 - 220 of 2,450
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Sep 2022, 2:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “Here, because Brooks plead guilty to certain tax evasion counts, those convictions were not abated by the Second Circuit in United States v Brooks (872 F3d 78, 87-88 [2d Cir 2017)). [read post]
15 Sep 2022, 1:24 pm by admin
Professor Cheng may have over-generalized in stating that judges are epistemically incompetent to make substantive expert determinations. [read post]
Rule 41(g) states that “a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return” (emphasis added). [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am by Eugene Volokh
New York State Liquor Authority[15] involved a New York law under which liquor distillers could not sell to wholesalers in New York except in accordance with a monthly price schedule that affirmed that prices in New York were no higher than the lowest prices charged in other states.[16] Healy v. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 4:00 am by Administrator
Action4Canada v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2022 BCSC 1507 (CanLII) [71] Put simply, individuals have standing to question whether state actions infringe their Charter protected rights. [read post]
12 Aug 2022, 4:24 am by Ashley Morgan
The LCD states the following: “Evaluation of the clinical literature indicates that studies comparing the efficacy of CTPs to alternative wound care approaches with patients’ autologous skin are limited in number, apply mainly to generally healthy patients, and examine only a small portion of the CTP products available in the United States. [read post]
10 Jul 2022, 12:47 am by Frank Cranmer
: on the recent decisions in Onuoha v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust and Kovalkovs v 2 Sisters Food Group Limited. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 7:13 am by admin
The Bradford Hill Predicate: Ruling Out Random and Systematic Error In two recent posts, I spent some time discussing a recent law review, which had some important things to say about specific causation.[1] One of several points from which I dissented was the article’s argument that Sir Austin Bradford Hill had not made explicit that ruling out random and systematic error was required before assessing his nine “viewpoints” on whether an association was causal. [read post]