Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 2321 - 2340
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jul 2015, 2:35 pm
Perhaps more importantly, for the past quarter century one of those few appellate decisions has been State v. [read post]
24 Jul 2015, 10:01 am
So Lola v. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 9:11 am
Jurisdictional Boundaries of Prior Use within Britain: An analysis of the House of Lords’ judgments in Roebuck v Stirling (1774) and Brown v Annandale (1842)Barbara Henry (University of Hertfordshire)Commentator | Eva Hemmungs Wirtén (Linköping University, Sweden) Two cases, 60 years apart. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 6:32 am
Frye v. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 9:36 am
A 2003 case, Eldred v. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 11:32 am
Save Our Heritage Organisation v. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 4:12 pm
City of Irvine v. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 8:52 am
A post-trial challenge to the sufficiency of the charging instrument is subject to a prejudice standard. [read post]
11 Jul 2015, 6:22 pm
I to V – 1st offense. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 12:55 pm
(This is the famous but misleadingly named “actual malice” standard.) [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 8:33 am
Typically, those arguing duty use Cardoza and those arguing causation use Andrews. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 8:33 am
Typically, those arguing duty use Cardoza and those arguing causation use Andrews. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 6:56 pm
The Constitution, after all, means only and precisely what 5 members of the Supreme Court say it does. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 1:25 pm
Indeed, in Holder v. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 4:39 am
Church & Dwight Co. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 7:06 pm
Under the standard set forth by the US Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors Inc v Pena (65 EPD ¶43,366 (1995)), to survive constitutional review, a government entity’s consideration of race has to meet strict scrutiny standards; thus, it must: (1) serve a compelling state interest; and (2) be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 6:32 am
To us that’s another false conflict. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 4:13 am
W/o harmonization, standards for advertising were different—protection very strict in Germany, 10-15% misled = sufficient for misleading. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 2:35 pm
Save Our Heritage Organization v. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 10:00 am
" Further, said the court, “as long as the legislature makes the basic policy choices, the legislation need not be detailed or precise as to the agency's role. [read post]
