Search for: "BLADES v. STATE"
Results 221 - 240
of 385
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2012, 8:39 pm
In the recent case of State v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 6:43 am
State v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 8:00 pm
The case is Bacote, et al v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 2:48 pm
Last week, in the case of United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 11:58 am
In United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 7:11 am
In The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), Julia Angwin and Jess Bravin report on arguments made by the government in a GPS tracking case in the Ninth Circuit in light of the Court’s decision earlier this year in United States v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 1:41 pm
Read More: Washington Blade [read post]
20 May 2012, 8:01 pm
In People v. [read post]
15 May 2012, 9:08 pm
Kansas v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 3:10 am
The court also stated that possessing a machete is only criminal if and when the person who possess the large blade intends to use it unlawfully against another person. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 4:09 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 8:23 am
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently considered a grisly Florida defective products case, explaining that state law prevents a person injured by certain unsafe products from suing if the product was used after it's "useful life. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 10:38 am
See Voda v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 10:53 am
In People v. [read post]
16 Jan 2012, 10:00 pm
In a “spot on” treatment the insecticide is dabbed on a small area of the animal’s body, usually near the shoulder blades, and then spreads over the animal’s body to kill the fleas. [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 4:17 pm
In Degelman Industries Ltd. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm
Patent No. 6,626,776 entitled EXPANDABLE BROADHEAD WITH MULTIPLE SLIDING BLADES and owned by Out RAGE. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 9:00 pm
Patent No. 6,626,776 entitled EXPANDABLE BROADHEAD WITH MULTIPLE SLIDING BLADES and owned by Out RAGE. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 4:37 am
State v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 6:10 am
In Osorio v. [read post]
