Search for: "BOX v. STATE"
Results 2441 - 2460
of 5,284
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2009, 1:27 am
DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal Practice
$500 Fine, Exceeding Forfeiture Amount, Probation Did Not Improperly Penalize Defendant's Trial Right
United States v. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 8:45 am
In State v. [read post]
21 Feb 2017, 8:45 am
In State v. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 3:45 am
State v. [read post]
3 May 2022, 9:00 pm
It is all a black box, and we simply trust what we see on our computer screens. [read post]
7 Feb 2015, 6:03 pm
In Commonwealth v. [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 10:22 pm
By Andrew DelaneyTrudell v. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 1:30 pm
In State v. [read post]
3 Dec 2021, 12:20 pm
SharePatel v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 8:39 am
Kirwan Texas State University-San Marcos v. [read post]
24 May 2019, 3:59 am
The law gave the federal government control of the famous Nixon White House audiotapes and some 138 boxes of Nixon’s documents and papers. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 4:25 am
If you still disagree, the comment box is below. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 11:56 am
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the border search case U.S. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2020, 7:09 am
Izquierdo v. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 4:25 am
If you still disagree, the comment box is below. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 6:53 am
This has been seen different in the United States, as under the Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service decision (more on which can be found here) effort alone won't give a work protectability under copyright. [read post]
7 Sep 2017, 10:20 am
This was the subject of an interim decision of Roth J. earlier this month in the Competition Appeal Tribunal: Secretary of State for Health and Others v Servier Laboratories Limited and Others [2017] EWHC 2006 (Ch) -- IPKat's Eibhlin Vardy has made a detailed summary for you.And the weekly routine, Around the IP blogs! [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 6:18 am
That changed in 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled in Kingsley v. [read post]
19 Oct 2017, 10:32 pm
The case is Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC v. [read post]
