Search for: "State v. W. B." Results 3521 - 3540 of 4,292
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2015, 3:48 am by Zack Bluestone
Kirk explains that, “[w]hile making no compromises, Xi at least [has] made clear he really doesn’t want to see war breaking out. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 4:25 am by Peter J. Sluka
When parties have gone outside the boundaries that the state has set, it makes sense that the state would treat the impermissible act as if it never occurred. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  To a political scientist, one way is by viewing it as a power play by the rabbinate, an attempt many centuries before the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Cooper v Aaron to engage in a performative utterance establishing themselves as the “ultimate interpreters” of the document in question, whether the Torah or the Constitution. [read post]
19 Sep 2022, 8:46 am by Dennis Crouch
  The Board relied particularly on the Federal Circuit’s non-precedential decision in Cyber settle, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Aug 2023, 11:05 am by Benson Varghese
§ 922(a), (b), (o), (v), & (w) Description It is unlawful to knowingly possess or manufacture certain types of firearms. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 4:55 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Lishman (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1288), or a more deferential “substantial evidence” standard of review (as held by Mani Brothers Real Estate Group v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO (Chicago IP Litigation Blog) District Court N D Illinois: False marking false marking false marking all at up to $500 per offense: Simonian v. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:11 pm
Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO (Chicago IP Litigation Blog) District Court N D Illinois: False marking false marking false marking all at up to $500 per offense: Simonian v. [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 9:25 am by Keith Szeliga and Daniel Alvarado
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals has explained the relationship between the two subsections as follows: The more that a claimed cost satisfies the business necessity requirement in subsection (c), the more the contractor’s burden to satisfy the benefit requirement in subsection (b) is reduced. [read post]