Search for: "State v. C. D. H." Results 301 - 320 of 2,115
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2021, 8:44 am by Eugene Volokh
Tenants, for instance, may worry that suing a landlord will lead other landlords to decline to rent to them.[5] [c.] [read post]
29 Nov 2021, 11:57 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Section 1806 (c) and (d) require the federal or a state government to provide notice to an aggrieved person whenever it intends to introduce such information as evidence in any proceedings against that person. [read post]
21 Nov 2021, 9:00 pm by Samuel Estreicher and Ryan Amelio
”[20] OSHA in the 1991 Standard relied on its reasoning from the 1978 Occupational Exposure to Lead Final Standard (the “1978 Standard”) where it rejected biological testing of workers as a means of monitoring employer compliance with occupational lead exposure limits.[21] In the 1978 Standard, OSHA concluded that “[a]ttempting to compel workers to subject themselves to detailed medical examinations presents the possibility of clashes with legitimate privacy and religious… [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 6:42 pm by Stephen Page
”[2] G v H (1994) A good starting point in discussing the issue of who is a parent is G v. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 6:42 pm by Stephen Page
”[2] G v H (1994) A good starting point in discussing the issue of who is a parent is G v. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 2:07 pm by Alka Bahal
USCIS is updating its interpretation and implementation of 8 CFR 274a.13(d) to provide that certain H-4, E, or L dependent spouses will qualify for the automatic extension provided under this regulatory provision if certain conditions are met. [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 9:52 am by Eugene Volokh
Drawing in witnesses When the Court recognized a public right of access to criminal trials, in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2021, 5:01 am by Eric Halliday, Rachael Hanna
In Iowa, if the obstruction occurs during a riot, the offense becomes a Class D felony and the maximum penalty increases to five years in prison and a $7,500 fine. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 7:00 am by Jonathan Pyzer
Canadian cases where the accused was found guilty of voyeurism: Placing a camera in the ceiling of the male staff bathroom (R v B.H. 2017 ONCJ)Secretly recording persons in the restroom of a restaurant (R v Bosomworth 2015 BCPC)Filming multiple people in multiple public washrooms, including home washroom (R v Dekker 2014 ABPC)An obsession with a victim led an accused to spy on her at work, including while she was in the shower, and recording her while she was… [read post]