Search for: "Davis v. Bear"
Results 241 - 260
of 622
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jan 2017, 1:26 pm
” (Davis v. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 9:01 pm
Term Limits, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 5:52 pm
In 1953, in Shaughnessy v. [read post]
25 Sep 2016, 5:14 pm
Town of Milton Board of Health v. [read post]
13 Sep 2016, 8:18 pm
In the case of Chubb, Justices Foster, Robertson and Davies took a narrow view of the meaning of the professional services exclusion[2] and gave the insurance contract a businesslike interpretation. [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 7:00 am
Such a claim could be viable under Title VII and Section 1981 if properly pleaded and proven, the court explained, denying the employer’s motion to dismiss with leave to refile (Davis v. [read post]
17 Aug 2016, 6:55 am
U.S. v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 7:03 pm
Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989)); see also Davis v. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 4:01 am
M and the Valuation Officer disagreed as to state of repair of the property, which has a direct bearing on the rateable value of the property. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 1:15 am
” The brief – filed by Mark Davies – argues that a product’s visual design is critically important in the sales of complex products. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 5:40 am
It is well-settled law that legislative enactments carry a strong presumption of constitutionality (People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 422 [2003); People v Scott, 26 NY2d 286, 291 [1970)) Thus, a party seeking to find a statute unconstitutional bears a heavy burden and “must demonstrate, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, that the statute suffers from ‘wholesale constitutional impairment'” (People v Davis, 13… [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 7:50 pm
Davis, — F.3d —, 2016 WL 3245043 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Marks rule, Fair Sentencing Act) The en banc court needed to decide “how to interpret the Supreme Court’s fractured opinion in Freeman v. [read post]
25 Jul 2016, 9:01 pm
For example, a few years ago in Arlington v. [read post]
22 Jul 2016, 4:04 am
This led both Tele2 and Watson (along with a Conservative MP, David Davis, who withdrew his name when he became a cabinet minister) to challenge their respective national data retention regimes, essentially arguing that such regimes were incompatible with the standards set down in Digital Rights Ireland. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 7:16 am
From a panel decision Bennie v. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 2:29 pm
Davis v. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 3:14 am
The Supreme Court opinion these stains-upon-humanity birthed, Snyder v. [read post]
13 Jun 2016, 9:23 am
(2) Nike v. [read post]
6 May 2016, 3:37 am
It came after the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. [read post]
3 May 2016, 10:29 am
See Brady v. [read post]
