Search for: "State v. Armstrong"
Results 381 - 400
of 684
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Oct 2012, 2:29 pm
In the United States, that standard is typically “clear and convincing evidence. [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 9:00 am
On October 10, 2012, the United States Anti-doping Agency (“USADA”) issued a 202-page reasoned decision describing evidence against Lance Armstrong and alleged rule violations (the “Reasoned Decision”). [read post]
5 Oct 2012, 12:52 pm
United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012). [read post]
23 Sep 2012, 6:57 am
See Cathedral Hill Tower v. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 6:01 am
Attorney in the case of United States v Samuel Mullet, et al, charged members of a peculiar Amish synod with hate crimes; charges that involve far more complex proofs.About two-years ago, ole Samuel Mullet [you cannot make it up] broke away from the traditional fundamentalist Christian Amish church in which he was raised, to start a renegade sect of his own in Bergholz, Ohio. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 3:15 am
KZ 3410 A77 2012 International law and international relations / David Armstrong, Theo Farrell, and He? [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 9:33 pm
by Jeremy Clare Even though Lance Armstrong decided on August 23rd not to proceed to arbitration with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (“USADA”), the process for sanctioning Mr. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 3:31 am
Almost as many people viewed this spectacle online and in the non-British press as viewed the late Neil Armstrong's moonwalk, but the British press was asked to refrain from publishing the pics. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
The case of the day is Wallishauser v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 3:54 pm
” The statement came after US District Court Judge Sam Sparks’ Order in Armstrong v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 3:20 pm
Related Posts: Armstrong v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 5:56 pm
For cycling fans following Lance Armstrong’s legal challenges in connection with doping allegations, in a 30 page opinion [Armstrong v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 3:47 pm
Related Posts: Armstrong v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 11:14 am
Our blogs have been following the Lance Armstrong v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 9:43 am
Co., 10 Cal.4th 645 (1995); Armstrong World Industries, Inc v. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 5:47 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 2:44 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 3:42 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 4:40 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
