Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 3841 - 3860
of 4,575
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Sep 2010, 1:22 pm
Thus, in City of Philadelphia v. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 10:48 am
(California Oak Foundation v. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 9:09 am
Romantics v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 11:52 am
” One could read the majority’s discussion (on page 17 of the slip op) to mean that the relevance and materiality standard described in the text of 2703(d) should apply in all cases, but the rest of the decision clarifies that, while MJs should generally use the relevance and materiality standard, they retain the option, “to be used sparingly,” to require a warrant when needed. [read post]
11 Sep 2010, 6:14 am
Ahle v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 9:20 am
In State v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 9:20 am
In State v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
Precision Airmotive Corp., 42 P.3d 1071, 1071 (Alaska 2002) (§20); Savage Arms, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 12:21 am
In the new case, United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 5:14 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 11:23 am
Karo and United States v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 12:56 pm
v. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 9:00 am
They correctly invoke Hunt v. [read post]
5 Sep 2010, 7:12 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 11:50 am
Take, for example, the chestnut case of Batsakis v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 10:30 pm
Furthermore, as the Supreme Court said about the death penalty in Furman v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 8:45 am
” The case is Smallwood v. [read post]
28 Aug 2010, 12:55 pm
Salamea v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 5:37 am
" Sullivan v. [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 9:08 pm
I think the answer lies in an attempt to codify into law the fairness criteria established by the Canadian courts to determine whether a particular use meets the fair dealing standard. [read post]
