Search for: "State v. Self" Results 2881 - 2900 of 14,337
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jul 2008, 6:20 pm
United States v Groos, June 13, 2008.Defendant Groos requested authorization to depose two "foreign witnesses who will help prove that Mr. [read post]
22 Feb 2007, 2:39 pm
Even when the evidence adduced by the state in support of your commitment is somewhat lame. [read post]
30 Aug 2010, 1:24 pm by Ronald V. Miller, Jr.
This is the classic "brother's keeper" v. individual rights issue. [read post]
28 Jul 2007, 7:36 am
Yesterday's Court of Appeals decision in David Michael Green v. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 4:16 am by Dean Freeman
Although defense had argued this notice requirement should only apply in self-service establishments, the state high court disagreed. [read post]
2 May 2016, 2:21 pm by Kirk Jenkins
In a ruling with significant potential implications for Illinois’ long-running financial crisis, the Illinois Supreme Court recently held in State of Illinois v. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 10:42 am by Eric Goldman
Substantial State Interest As usual, the court credits the state’s interest in protecting children’s privacy and physical/psychological well-being. [read post]
23 Feb 2017, 5:39 pm by Pillsbury's Construction Law Team
Additional Source: Securing Rights-of-Way to CO2 Pipeline Corridors in the United States; The Future of Carbon Dioxide Injection EOR in the United States [read post]
15 Jan 2008, 2:46 am
As I noted on this blog at the time (here), Levy provided an example in which "the right to keep and read books" is justified by a prefatory clause that states that declares "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the self-governance of a free state . . . . [read post]
12 May 2009, 2:23 am
A Petition for Certiorari has been filed in Brown v. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm by Rosalind English
See paras 23 – 29 of  R (English UK Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1726   for a further explanation of the workings of PBS. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 3:40 am
From further internal YouTube emails, Viacom lifts other extracts which indicate that YouTube was aware of mass copyright infringement but chose to take a passive role in the self-monitoring of the site in order to benefit from the safe harbour legislation. [read post]