Search for: "State v. Sample" Results 2901 - 2920 of 4,175
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jul 2023, 9:06 pm by Bill Marler
A routine FSIS ground beef surveillance sample collected in March 2023 was closely related to bacteria from sick people’s samples. [read post]
19 Mar 2016, 3:40 pm by Schachtman
” Of course, this ignores the central limit theorems, the importance of random sampling, the pre-specification of hypotheses and level of Type I error, and the like. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 12:34 am
For example, here is an opinion issued last Friday, April 25th, in the case of In The Matter of B.F. and T.F., Children in Need of Services, Audrey Faver v. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am by Ben
More from Europe: In Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box the CJEU said that circumventing a protection system may not be unlawful. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 12:50 pm by Adam Levitin
Last week the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion in a case captioned Kemp v. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 8:44 am by Eric Schweibenz
Qu’s fifty chosen samples were not representative of all accused products. [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 2:40 pm
This willingness of states and other public organs to delegate is especially potent with respect to rules states are unwilling or incapable of adopting through traditional assertions of public authority. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 4:30 am by Jim Dedman
Beauregarde, Mars argued, had not tasted the particular candy bar at issue but had instead sampled an exemplar bar. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 4:44 am by Hon. Richard G. Kopf
The United States has made no representations or promises as to a specific sentence. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 3:18 am
In February 2006 Grain Harvesters’ trade mark attorneys responded by enclosing a sample of packaging, stating that the use of SUPREME had been this way on the packaging since the early 1990s and saying that their client had made no changes from what had been done in the past. [read post]
1 Dec 2015, 2:25 pm
  Not to be confused with another preemption decision, Funk v. [read post]