Search for: "Bear v. State"
Results 3781 - 3800
of 14,844
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2019, 2:00 am
However, the Department of Labor (DOL) has endorsed the following nonexhaustive, seven-factor “Primary Beneficiary Test,” which was established by the 2nd Circuit in Glatt v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 10:06 pm
Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 9:01 pm
In the Supreme Court term that ended last month, the Court decided United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 11:03 am
Dreeben argues in Turner v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 7:39 am
This case provides some guidance on how to proceed.The case is Fuller v. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 7:34 pm
The applicable statute of limitations, borrowed from state law, was four years. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 6:00 am
The Constitution states that members of Congress—along with every state legislative official and every judicial and executive official of both the state and federal governments—“shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. [read post]
28 Jul 2019, 3:30 pm
The volume’s editors (Arizona State University’s David H. [read post]
28 Jul 2019, 10:17 am
United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 11:00 am
As such, the defendant bears the burden. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 12:29 pm
Because it’s the employee who bears the burden of proof, often indirect evidence of intent is introduced, as outlined in the 1988 California appellate case of Stephens v. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 3:15 am
United States, 99 Ct. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 2:22 am
Additional Resources: Wickersham v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 11:38 am
In Katz v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 2:46 am
Payment shall be received in the currency stated in Box 20(i) in full without discount or set-off to the account stated in Box 23 […] If payment is not received by the Owners within five (5) Banking Days following the due date the Owners are entitled to charge interest at the rate stated in Box 25 on the amount outstanding from and including the due date until payment is received. [read post]
21 Jul 2019, 5:20 am
Finn v. [read post]
20 Jul 2019, 5:59 am
Just this month in Florida, an appellate court in Hoce v. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 11:24 pm
In that case, the result was basically just a binary yes-or-no piece of information on whether a certain medical condition was present.The relevant line-drawing is centered around the question of whether the transmitted data bears actual and technical characteristics engraved by the patented process. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 8:38 am
Additionally, [plaintiff's] general job performance records reasonably bear on the defendant's stated reason for [plaintiff's] demotion[.] [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 5:41 pm
From Huang v. [read post]
