Search for: "Patterson v. Does" Results 221 - 240 of 536
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Feb 2016, 3:30 am by David Markus
Patterson, after all,does not object to anything in the 2009 order that spared him from chemicalcastration or allege that the removal of chemical castration somehow violated hisfederal constitutional rights. [read post]
8 Dec 2015, 6:44 pm by Bill Marler
Approximately 12% of asymptomatic food handlers were carriers for one of the norovirus genotypes. [28] This was the first report of norovirus molecular epidemiology relating asymptomatic individuals to outbreaks, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals are an important link in the infectivity pathway. [15, 28] Asymptomatic infection may occur because some people may have acquired immunity, which explains why some show symptoms upon infection and some do not. [16, 28, 33] Such immunity does… [read post]
27 Nov 2015, 9:39 am by Ronald Collins
What does your book add to the biographical mix and our understanding of Earl Warren? [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 7:46 am by Ronald Mann
The first Monday in October will bring the Justices a refreshing gem of a case in Hawkins v. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
  In a 61 page judgment in CPA Australia v NZICA [2015] NZHC 1854 Dobson J held that, whilst NZICA representatives had made some indefensible disparaging remarks, CPAA’s inability to establish pecuniary loss meant its claims could not be made out. [read post]
29 Aug 2015, 10:58 am by Drew Falkenstein
Approximately 12% of asymptomatic food handlers were carriers for one of the norovirus genotypes. [28] This was the first report of norovirus molecular epidemiology relating asymptomatic individuals to outbreaks, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals are an important link in the infectivity pathway. [15, 28] Asymptomatic infection may occur because some people may have acquired immunity, which explains why some show symptoms upon infection and some do not. [16, 28, 33] Such immunity does… [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 8:28 am by Ralph L. Jacobson
The court found that the plaintiff did not consent to, or agree to excuse, a landing strip owner’s breach of its duty to design and maintain a safe airstrip, so the doctrine did not apply.In Patterson v. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 8:30 am by Terry Hart
Doe, Preliminary Injunction Order, No. 14-CV-3492 (SDNY May 29, 2014); AACS-LA v. [read post]