Search for: "State v. Levell "
Results 3901 - 3920
of 29,868
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Feb 2011, 4:29 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm
The Court of Appeal stated: “...absent evidence to support a finding of fact that, but for Dr. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 7:19 am
Andrée Sophia Blumstein is the solicitor general of Tennessee, which joined an amicus brief with 19 other states in support of the challenger in Janus v. [read post]
2 Oct 2010, 7:13 am
Related information: Article by Dave Christensen: Michigan auto law update on McCormick v. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 6:45 am
The Court of Appeal notably steered clear of adopting such a rigid approach in 10x Genomics v Nanostring. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 5:00 am
According to Wyeth, this expert determination does not represent a "floor" level of safety that states are free to raise, and a state jury verdict that did so would conflict with the FDA's carefully calibrated directive to an affected company. [read post]
11 Oct 2014, 6:00 am
Cobb, Rachel V.; D. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 4:38 am
In STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA v. [read post]
27 Nov 2015, 1:03 pm
McCord v. [read post]
27 Sep 2008, 8:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2009, 4:23 pm
The case of State v. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am
In Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, the New York State's Court of Appeals said:"In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement* (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013]). [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am
In Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, the New York State's Court of Appeals said:"In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement* (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013]). [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 12:52 am
This means that: "Where the specification does not promise a specific result, no particular level of utility is required; a “mere scintilla” of utility will suffice. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 9:39 am
This means that: "Where the specification does not promise a specific result, no particular level of utility is required; a “mere scintilla” of utility will suffice. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:39 am
§ 41713(b)(1)) that “prohibits states from enforcing any law ‘relating to rates, routes, or services’ of any air carrier,” Morales v. [read post]
9 Oct 2004, 3:46 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 9:19 am
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of Bilski v. [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 5:01 am
Table 3: Judicial votes in 2020 presidential election cases, by state State-Court level The 29 state cases did not all begin in the first instance (trial courts). [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 3:44 pm
Lowe v. [read post]
