Search for: "State v. L. H.-H." Results 261 - 280 of 2,513
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jun 2022, 7:00 am by Guest Blogger
“[L]et us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us,” he writes, “and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 5:00 pm by Michael Ehline
“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. [read post]
19 May 2022, 7:05 am by Ameet Sarpatwari
Whitehouse P, Gandy S, Saini V, George DR, Larson EB, Alexander GC, Avorn J, Brownlee S, Camp C, Chertkow H, Fugh-Berman A, Howard R, Kesselheim A, Langa KM, Perry G, Richard E, Schneider L. [read post]
9 May 2022, 7:52 am by Kyle Persaud
Your employer (rather than yourself) should file Form I-129 if you were admitted under one of the following categories: • E-1 or E-2 (Treaty Traders, Treaty Investors, and Employees of Treaty Traders and Treaty Investors) • E-3 (Skilled Professionals from Australia) • H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, or H-3 (Temporary Skilled or Unskilled Workers and Trainees) • L-1A or L-1B (Intracompany Transferees) • O-1… [read post]
6 May 2022, 6:10 am by Noah J. Phillips
In 1977, in GTE Sylvania, the Courtheld that vertical customer and territorial restraints should be judged under the rule of reason.[17] In 1979, in BMI, it held that a blanket license issued by a clearinghouse of copyright owners that set a uniform price and prevented individual negotiation with licensees was a necessary precondition for the product and was thus subject to the rule of reason.[18] In 1984, in Jefferson Parish, the Court rejected automatic application of the per se rule to tying.[19]… [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Had one looked at this issue in 1921, the United States would have had company: At that time, Australia and Canada, countries that, like the United States, were influenced by the British tradition, provided judges with indefinite tenure during good behavior.[3]However, each of these countries amended their constitutions and adopted mandatory retirement ages for their federal judges later in the 20thcentury – 70 in Australia, 75 in Canada. [read post]