Search for: "Does 1 - 39"
Results 301 - 320
of 5,204
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Nov 2011, 7:53 pm
Does it sometimes instead give false results? [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 8:21 am
That is the most severe possible consequence imaginable for judicial misconduct.1 I submit that if that type of egregious judicial misconduct, with the most serious possible consequences imaginable, does not require removal from office, nothing does. [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 4:19 am
It does have the Border Patrol requirements. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 11:03 am
In re Timothy P., No. 1-07-1518 (January 28, 2009). [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 8:28 pm
Arizona has been overruled by the Courts in just every aspect except by name, and look how these steps from 1692 aren't much different than today's criminal procedure, notably excepting the charge of witchcraft: 1. [read post]
4 Jan 2015, 4:46 pm
In New Jersey, the Judge does not have to rule that you were drunk. [read post]
16 May 2009, 10:02 am
The two themes that run through the prosecution's pleadings are: (1) Trial by military commission does not entitle the accused to protections of the Bill of Rights, only to rights authorized by the Military Commissions Act, and (2) the length to which the DOD will go to prevent anything coming up as to what may have happened while the detainees were held and interrogated in CIA black sites overseas. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 5:21 am
The confrontation clause does not apply to suppression hearings. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 6:15 pm
and (2) to cover their ass**s if something does go down. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 5:57 am
The ECJ ruled that: “…the answer to the question referred is that Article 4(1)(2) of Directive 2004/39, read in conjunction with point 1 of Section A of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the investment service consisting in the reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments does not include brokering with a view to concluding a contract covering portfolio management services. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 12:10 pm
The sense is that Bell does not and so resorts to traffic management practices. [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 8:09 am
Section 39-17-1313). [read post]
21 Jun 2007, 7:09 am
Christopher Slobogin (University of Florida - Levin College of Law) has posted Lying and Confessing (Texas Tech Law Review, Vol. 39, 2007) on SSRN. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 5:59 am
§ 1677a(c)(1)(C). [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 2:06 pm
This is evidenced by the definitions set forth under N.J.S.A. 39:1-1. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:18 am
It should be: 1) Is there substantial similarity? [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 2:56 pm
In a second decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
16 Oct 2020, 1:45 am
Recital (2) to the EU Regulation, despite mentioning suffering being induced “by negligence or intention”, does not affect the wording of article 3(1). [read post]
29 Jul 2007, 4:36 pm
I'll either (1) add the missing info, (2) explain why you're wrong, or (3) ignore your suggestion. [read post]
11 Dec 2007, 7:00 pm
The bill does eliminate the mandatory minimum for first timers who possess for personal use. [read post]
