Search for: "State v. R. H." Results 21 - 40 of 4,722
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Apr 2024, 10:08 am by admin
In December 1996, Judge Jones issued his decision that excluded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ proposed testimony on grounds that it failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 702.[5] In October 1996, while Judge Jones was studying the record, and writing his opinion in the Hall case, Judge Weinstein, with a judge from the Southern District of New York, and another from New York state trial court, conducted a two-week Rule 702 hearing, in Brooklyn. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
For many business economists and legal academics, the purpose of any business organization is simply stated: to maximize profits. [read post]
24 Mar 2024, 6:50 pm
The Court concluded there were extensive human rights violations and ordered the State to provide specialized medical assistance to the victims, pay compensation for both material losses and pain and suffering, and publicly acknowledge its wrongdoing. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 5:57 am by lawbod
In Northern Ireland, abortion remained illegal unless to save the life of the mother, or the pregnancy would result in the woman becoming a ‘physical or mental wreck’, conditions established following R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615. [read post]
10 Feb 2024, 7:17 am by Russell Knight
Moving to another state clearly does require some kind of action with the court. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 5:15 pm by Administrator
Reilly, 2021 SCC 38, at para. 3; see also R. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 9:03 am by Dennis Crouch
R.4(h) provides the additional guidance that a company can be served “at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i). [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 7:07 am by Daniel M. Kowalski
Mehta and Kaitlyn Box have thoughts: "The Supreme Court on January 17, 2024 heard arguments in two cases – R elentless, Inc. v. [read post]