Search for: "State v. Little"
Results 3861 - 3880
of 24,290
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jan 2017, 10:20 am
State Ct. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 6:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
8 Apr 2012, 8:55 am
Of course, there is still that pesky little confusion test for Gucci, which in the Second Circuit is the Polaroid Crop v Polarad Elecs Corp (1961) test (see test here as applied to another famous shoe battle, Louboutin v YSL). [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 6:56 am
The court’s decision on this point relied heavily on a 2000 decision of an intermediate appellate Florida state court – Davis v. [read post]
10 Oct 2008, 3:23 am
The Second Circuit, in United States v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 6:48 pm
Tuesday: The mandate is too much or too little for the Commerce Clause. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 10:28 am
The truth is a little messier. [read post]
11 Jun 2015, 8:25 am
” EEOC v. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 7:26 am
See Powers v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 1:54 pm
Co. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 7:10 pm
In State v. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 7:10 pm
In State v. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 6:33 pm
Backer, Race, "The Race," and the Republic: Re-conceiving Judicial Authority After Bush v. [read post]
3 Jan 2009, 12:17 am
See Gonzalez v. [read post]
11 Oct 2021, 1:52 pm
We say that, yeah, the jury must have reached a middle ground, but that result benefits the defendant a little bit (the acquittal on Y) while hurting him a little (the conviction on X). [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 1:04 pm
By Jason Rantanen Interval Licensing LLC v. [read post]
31 Jul 2014, 1:17 pm
In State v. [read post]
26 Nov 2024, 4:47 am
Similarly, in United States v. [read post]
18 Jul 2010, 4:37 am
In State v Marquez, the NJ Supreme Court held that an individual arrested for DWI/DUI has the right to be informed of the consequences of refusing to consent (to submit) to an Alcotest (Breathalyzer) in the language that they speak. [read post]
24 May 2018, 10:03 am
Following a decision in 2005 by the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Finanzamt Gladback v Linneweber (Case C-453/02), [2005] ECR I-1131, [2008] STC 1069) which stated that VAT was not, and never had been, payable on income attributable to gaming machines, Carlton submitted several claims relating to overpayments of VAT to HMRC. [read post]
