Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 3761 - 3780
of 4,575
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2012, 8:59 am
Under Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
7 Aug 2022, 12:15 pm
This type of critical analysis is normal for those of us in insurance coverage litigation. [read post]
22 Mar 2021, 6:01 am
I used to tell them: "First, think of adjunct teaching as a very expensive hobby. [read post]
21 Mar 2015, 2:39 am
A large part of the new provisions concern duties of cooperation in case of insolvency of groups of companies (Chapter V). [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 6:46 pm
(Home Care Association of America v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 12:44 pm
Using Arlington Heights v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
Let’s start with the complaint’s assertion that the US Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Fisher v. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 4:35 pm
The first step requires the Court decide whether Congress has directly spoken to a precise factual application in the statutory language. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 4:36 am
Teufel explains precisely how the DHS policy worked, and explains why he supports doing NSA adopting the same standard. [read post]
27 Apr 2016, 8:45 am
Again, Cheng is correct insofar as he suggests that statisticians do not often use use absolute probabilities. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 12:16 pm
In the afternoon roundtable, one participant claimed that Hassell v. [read post]
12 Feb 2011, 7:07 am
Precisely because not all spillover benefits should be captured, we should use a model sensitive to allowing such spillovers. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 6:24 pm
" In a March 2023 order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction in Delaware State Sportsmen's Ass'n v. [read post]
10 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
Indeed, it is precisely the temptation that the Framers thought they had avoided by rejecting standards like maladministration. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 3:00 pm
Ally Shahabuddeen on Friday, in Travis v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 4:00 am
TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5. [read post]
30 Jul 2011, 8:44 am
Clemens' lawyers argue the case fits squarely within the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 10:12 pm
This seems to be a far more reasonable standard because the crime is not solely contingent on how the listener responds to the speech. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:26 am
It is a standard form of extortion of celebrities. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 12:55 pm
(This is the famous but misleadingly named “actual malice” standard.) [read post]
