Search for: "State v. Scott" Results 3121 - 3140 of 5,704
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Sep 2018, 5:02 am by Scott Bomboy
Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center. [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am by Schachtman
Requirements Imposed By State Licensing Boards and Medical Professional Societies The involvement of medical professionals in disciplining physicians for dubious litigation testimony, whether through state licensing authorities or voluntary medical associations, raises some difficult questions: Does a physician’s rendering an opinion on a medical issue in litigation, such as diagnosing silicosis, asbestosis, welding-induced encephalopathy, or fenfluramine-related cardiac… [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 4:39 pm by David Lat
But we haven’t seen a complaint this juicy since Allgood v. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 9:00 am by admin
In 1997, the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Georgia law requiring candidates for state offices to pass a drug test in Chandler v. [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 6:17 am
Posted by Ric Marshall, MSCI Inc., on Friday, July 5, 2019 Tags: Boards of Directors, Controlling shareholders, Dual-class stock, ESG, Institutional Investors, Lyft, Shareholder voting, Uber Director Independence and Oversight Obligation in Marchand v. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 10:56 am by Kent Scheidegger
  A whopper has just come to my attention from the state of Nebraska, where the people are going to vote on whether to abolish or retain the death penalty.Ernest Goss, Scott Strain, and Jackson Blalock have released a paper titled The Economic Impact of the Death Penalty on the State of Nebraska: a Taxpayer Burden? [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 6:22 pm
" Everything was going along fine until Marvel stumbled across Brulotte v Thys (1964). [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am by Bexis
  In the consultation report of the neurologist states: “Neurontin is wholly appropriate in this patient. [read post]
8 Sep 2020, 7:46 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Background On AB 5 AB 5, which took effect on January 1, 2020, codified the ABC Test for employee status adopted in the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. [read post]