Search for: "Does 1 - 41"
Results 3601 - 3620
of 4,702
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2011, 11:16 am
The test is as follows: 1) Does the regulation completely ban protected expression? [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 7:34 am
There are several means by which to establish a parental relationship under the Act: (1) genetic contribution, N.J.S.A. 9:17-41; [2] (2) gestational primacy, i.e., giving birth, N.J.S.A. 9:17-41(a); or (3) adoption, N.J.S.A. 9:17-41(c). [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 5:24 am
While the product of the search led to a federal indictment, it was a state search governed by state law so Rule 41 does not apply. [read post]
26 Feb 2011, 3:47 pm
at 41-42. [read post]
26 Feb 2011, 6:58 am
Further, Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure also does not require the issuing judicial authority to sign the search warrant when the search warrant is applied for in person. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 1:03 pm
Does this trend reflect a durable change in attitudes towards crime and punishment, or is this about short-term fiscal pressures and the need to reduce bloated corrections budgets? [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 12:12 pm
Does this reflect a durable change in attitudes towards crime and punishment, or is this about short-term fiscal pressures and the need to reduce bloated corrections budgets? [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 4:07 pm
Section 3(1) establishes a civil cause of action: “(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1) may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
If Pinnock and proportionality did apply then the Supreme Court would need to grapple with the detail of how proportionality should operate, procedurally and substantively (issues 1-4 above). [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 3:02 pm
If Pinnock and proportionality did apply then the Supreme Court would need to grapple with the detail of how proportionality should operate, procedurally and substantively (issues 1-4 above). [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 1:29 pm
United States, 208 F.3d 41, 44 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boria v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:07 am
Slip op. at 10 n.41. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 1:32 pm
Senate, where the bill now resides, is on recess for the remainder of the week and does not return until February 28, leaving four days to pass and sign a bill. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 9:15 am
In other words, a candidate does not lose his or her right under the RTI Act only because he or she has agreed to sit for JEE or GATE. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 2:08 pm
These are: 1. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 10:01 am
§ 41(d)(2). [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 11:00 pm
In the courts SA (Iranian Arabs-no general risk) Iran CG [2011] UKUT 41 (IAC) (10 February 2011) Upper Tribunal: Being Iranian Arab does not itself generate risk of persecution upon return to Iran. [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 8:16 pm
The penalty does not prevent criminal prosecution in appropriate cases. [read post]
18 Feb 2011, 10:00 pm
Very briefly, in 2005 the Strasbourg Court ruled, in the case of Hirst v UK (2006) 42 EHRR 41, that this blanket ban violated the right to vote under Article 3 Protocol 1. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 9:05 pm
See Facts 1 and 4. [read post]
