Search for: "In re A. V."
Results 3161 - 3180
of 62,913
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 May 2023, 6:37 am
Part of Just Security’s work on accountability and election law. [read post]
24 May 2023, 5:01 am
From H.B. v. [read post]
24 May 2023, 3:47 am
*As explained by Hans Bader: For example, in Stair v. [read post]
24 May 2023, 1:32 am
In light of the VLSI v. [read post]
23 May 2023, 11:00 pm
” Since those particulars were not supplied, the AD2 didn't think the requested relief should have been entertained.Sorry, but that’s about all we’re able to disclose.# # #DECISIONMuchnik v Mendez Trucking, Inc. [read post]
23 May 2023, 11:00 pm
” Since those particulars were not supplied, the AD2 didn't think the requested relief should have been entertained.Sorry, but that’s about all we’re able to disclose.# # #DECISIONMuchnik v Mendez Trucking, Inc. [read post]
23 May 2023, 9:43 am
Especially since we're talking about a painting that's 100+ years old, its original (as well as alleged successor) owners have long since met their reward (their descendants are the ones filing suit), and the painting's being displayed to the public in the interim. [read post]
23 May 2023, 9:42 am
Acuff-Rose and Google v. [read post]
23 May 2023, 7:50 am
In 1999, the Montana Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Montana Environmental Information Center v. [read post]
23 May 2023, 12:58 am
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (“SLSC”) has identified a re-attempt by the Government to amend the Public Order Act 1986 to lower the threshold for police intervention in respect of protests that was already rejected in January 2023 in the Public Order Bill—now the Public Order Act 2023. [read post]
22 May 2023, 4:59 pm
” In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. [read post]
22 May 2023, 3:52 pm
Brown's most high-profile case was Feds for Medical Freedom v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 2:53 pm
The Court of Appeal, partially reversed, based upon its interpretation of the relevant statute.The California Supreme Court then granted review.Now, in that tribunal, we're not willing to simply let one side argue the case without someone representing the contrary position. [read post]
22 May 2023, 11:59 am
McKay v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 11:55 am
Souza v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 11:49 am
That's a sufficient reason to depart from the requirement that the defendant be physically present at all stages of a trial, particularly when there's nothing that the defendant could have accomplished by being there at that point.I just want to add, however, that this result is okay (in my view) only if you're not a textualist. [read post]
22 May 2023, 7:46 am
[3] Rutledge v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 7:46 am
While this is still a low rate if we’re measuring net consumer confusion in a consumer survey, it would have been a lot more compelling if the court had expressly rejected this higher ratio. [read post]
22 May 2023, 6:47 am
” Department of Transp. v. [read post]
22 May 2023, 5:30 am
Here are the materials in Eagle Bear Inc. v. [read post]
