Search for: "State v. Word"
Results 2701 - 2720
of 40,644
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2024, 11:59 am
" Biden v. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 1:32 am
There is a short English phrase – not suitable for print – but featuring the word “cake” that sums this principle up nicely. [1] When reading this point, the authors were reminded of the decision of Vos J in Fresenius v Carefusion [2011] EWHC 2969 in which it was held that if a patentee consented to the revocation of its patent, it was not appropriate for it to be compelled to… [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 2:03 pm
First, Howlett v. [read post]
14 Nov 2015, 4:04 pm
This is a very different state of affairs to the prospective liability of search engine operators such as Google Inc under data protection laws, as recognised in Google Spain. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 1:16 pm
A recent case out of Washington State decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- Ocampo v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 3:00 am
§ 1983, and in United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 10:37 am
(And, yes, I realize that the use of the words "tiny" and "little" as applied to this industry is perhaps a slight misnomer.)For what it's worth, Judge Kozinski was on this panel as well. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 4:40 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
26 Jul 2014, 5:03 pm
This type of facial challenge, which is restricted to cases implicating the 1st Amendment, requires a court to assess the wording of the statute — without reference to the defendant’s conduct’ (People v. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 8:00 am
The Court recognized that the words “accept and use” do not necessarily carry such a broad meaning – they could mean only that the state was required to consider the federal form – but based on the context and the other provisions in the NVRA, the Court concluded that the requirement to “accept and use” the federal form has the stronger effect of requiring states to treat the federal form as sufficient. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 1:41 pm
US v. [read post]
27 Oct 2008, 9:01 pm
Bowen v. [read post]
12 Sep 2019, 6:52 am
[cite to Meyer v. [read post]
23 May 2017, 6:30 am
Understanding Indian title as an estate in land that is every bit as powerful as the fee simple—as equally "sacred" in the words of the Supreme Court—is the message we should be sending to new lawyers, not the opposite. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 9:00 pm
After Bush v. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 7:58 am
–Van Buren v. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 7:29 am
”) State v. [read post]
27 Apr 2008, 8:43 pm
This fact motivated a district judge in United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 4:57 pm
In particular, the Council referred to the obiter words of Lord Woolf MR in Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] QB 775: “if a public body is given a statutory responsibility which it is required to perform in the public interest, then, in the absence of an implication to the contrary in the statute, it has standing to apply to the court for an injunction to prevent interference with its performance of its public responsibilities and the courts should grant… [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:47 am
A problem with Stonite is its cryptic language and that the prior statute used the word “inhabitant” instead of “resident. [read post]
