Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 2421 - 2440
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2015, 10:00 am
It might be worthwhile to block that competition if the market-entry regulation serves a useful social purpose, and encouraging innovation can be such a useful social purpose. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 8:20 pm
In some cases, a defendant’s “intent can be inferred from the act itself” (People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977] [possession of weapon during a robbery satisfied element of intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another]). [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 4:12 am
In Doe v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 7:09 am
She said that while she had not used that precise term, she agreed with their characterization. [read post]
21 Mar 2015, 2:39 am
A large part of the new provisions concern duties of cooperation in case of insolvency of groups of companies (Chapter V). [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 5:05 pm
Doe, supra, standard is the correct standard for this case. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 10:40 am
That is precisely the issue in the City of Norwalk case. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 10:38 am
The standard the state used for vetoing that design, its potential to offend, is not a constitutionally valid basis for censorship, it said. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 4:57 pm
(D.I. 535)Footnote 6 is relevant to Teva v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 1:21 pm
This position was rejected by an administrative judge in Secretary of Labor v. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 7:00 am
More precisely, he claimed the printouts should not have been admitted because they (i) were not properly authenticated and/or (ii) were inadmissible hearsay. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 7:35 am
The Union may not simply invest other authorities with rule-making powers and abrogate its duty to enact the relevant substance (or procedure), without rendering the precise powers devolved onto the EU’s legislature devoid of sense. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 6:40 am
Doe, supra, standardis the correct standard for this case. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 5:21 pm
And Congress improperly “delegates”—or, more precisely, authorizes the exercise of, [see Thomas’s concurrence in the judgment in Monday’s other case, Perez v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 7:05 am
Circuit’s decision in Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 6:22 am
The decision in Perez v. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 7:00 am
[v] See chapter 3 of Scott D. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 9:26 pm
., Ltd. v. [read post]
7 Mar 2015, 10:15 am
And that is precisely what defenders of the federal government’s position are doing in King v. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 12:53 pm
The Fredericksburg Care Company LP v. [read post]
