Search for: "STATE v. WOODS" Results 341 - 360 of 3,001
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2021, 4:00 am by Michael Woods and Gordon LaFortune
Reviewed by Michael Woods. __________________ [1] Enbridge Energy Ltd. v State of Michigan, 2020 USDCWDMSD, Case 1:20-cv-01141 ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Online: < https://www.eenews.net/assets/2020/11/25/document_ew_05.pdf> [2] Enbridge Energy LP, supra note 1 at 1. [3] U.S.C. 6 [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 9:52 am by Phil Dixon
Judges Inman and Griffin concurred. (1) Victim’s statements regarding identity of attacker were admissible as excited utterances despite possible passage of time between attack and statements; (2) Sixth Amendment confrontation argument not raised during trial was waived on appeal notwithstanding pretrial motion; (3) No abuse of discretion or prejudicial error in admission of testimony identifying defendant on a jail phone call and interpreting the contents of the call State… [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 1:16 pm by Josh Blackman
By contrast, Justice Thomas's dissent cites opinions from Judges Sutton and Wood, without name-dropping: Huff v. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
If I were to include a single additional case from a court, I would include one from a federal trial court rather than the Supreme Court: future Justice William Woods’s United States v. [read post]
4 Jun 2021, 6:27 am
Gregory, and Leonard Wood, Sidley Austin LLP, on Saturday, May 29, 2021 Tags: Climate change, Environmental disclosure, ESG, Institutional Investors, Shareholder activism, Shareholder voting, Sustainability Testimony by SEC Chair Gensler Before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Posted by Gary Gensler, U.S. [read post]
21 May 2021, 5:14 am by CMS
The court’s analysis begins by referring to the principles of construction set out by Lord Hodge in Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24, noting that the process of construction will involve considering the words used in their “documentary, factual and commercial context. [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:57 am by Jessica Kroeze
The Board also set forth (point 5.4) that, on the basis of the minutes of the oral proceedings in examination, it was at least implicit during the oral proceedings, and should have been known to the applicant, that both D1 and D2 were considered as "closest prior art".V. [read post]