Search for: "FISH v. STATE"
Results 2541 - 2560
of 3,432
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2011, 6:46 am
As we reported last July, the innovation patents (which have the same descriptions, but different claims) relate to to a fish stunning apparatus including a fish stunning device, a fish guide and/or a fish delivery table. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 4:13 pm
In the case of Zimmerman v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 1:42 pm
Mildenberger v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 11:02 am
" under the deferential standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 9:22 am
There are a number of United States Supreme Court cases that have addressed the issue, Michigan v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:38 pm
(David Kopel) The State’s evidence is not compelling. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:39 am
In Medellin v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 4:18 pm
A recent opinion out of Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals deals specifically with the issue of the scope of an express easement in the case of Wilson & Son Ranch, LLC v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:31 pm
Maikhio, S180289, concerns whether state game wardens have the authority to stop and search fishermen and hunters without suspecting that they have violated hunting or fishing regulations. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm
In a recent case, Zimmerman v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 1:56 pm
[Pew Stateline] Smith v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 7:25 am
In People v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:39 am
Briefly: In his Opinionator column for the New York Times, Stanley Fish endorses the Court’s recent decision in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 4:53 am
People v. [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 9:16 am
One additional note: Stanley Fish a while back commented on Kagan's rhetorical style in her dissent in CSTO v. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 4:02 pm
Chadbourn liked to fish. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 12:59 pm
R (Quila & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R (Bibi & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 8 – 9 June 2011. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 10:37 am
Saylor in the case of Zimmerman v. [read post]
31 May 2011, 4:54 am
Imbler v. [read post]
30 May 2011, 5:19 pm
” Citing Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 109 AD2d 92, affd 67 NY2d 562, the Appellate Division said that the legislative history of §50-a indicates that the "statute was intended to apply to situations where a party to an underlying criminal or civil action is seeking documents in a police officer's personnel file, and was apparently designed to prevent 'fishing expeditions' to find material to use in cross-examination. [read post]
