Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 4041 - 4060
of 4,555
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jan 2010, 10:48 pm
This is precisely what happened in Oakwood Homes. [read post]
13 Jan 2010, 12:49 pm
Conveniently, this strategy leads right back to the “day of reckoning” Chairman Leibowitz threatened was coming last February: We are heading precisely where he told us we would be—to full-on, opt-in regulation. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 7:35 am
The case is United States v. [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
" Stalley v. [read post]
9 Jan 2010, 11:03 pm
Sullivan "actual malice" standard - and are (2) reasonably perceived as statements of fact, and not as fiction, hyperbole, humor, or parody, see Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n v. [read post]
Ninth Circuit Reverses Denial of Certification of Meal Break Claim in United Steel v. ConocoPhillips
8 Jan 2010, 2:30 pm
See Eisen, 417 U.S. at 177-78; Cummings v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 1:35 pm
” United States v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 5:02 am
Id. at 10-11 ("[t]he intentionally vague and open-ended nature of the regulations relied upon is the precise reason why they cannot serve as the basis for a parallel claim").That makes sense to us - a lot more sense than the Medtronic, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 10:41 pm
(E.g., People v. [read post]
30 Dec 2009, 9:41 am
., v. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 11:32 am
Ct. 1937 (2009), isn't drug/device), there are still quite a few well-reasoned and useful 2009 decisions for those of us on the right side (in more ways than one) of the "v. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 4:44 am
The more interesting issue is what she did - or more precisely didn't do. [read post]
23 Dec 2009, 6:36 am
Autodesk, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 9:34 am
State v. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 5:27 am
I wanted to use the rule â€" precisely because it is so central to corporate law â€" as a vehicle for testing out my director primacy model. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 2:29 pm
That’s why Minnesota uses the Frye-Mack standard - to prevent the jury from even being exposed to junk science. [read post]
17 Dec 2009, 2:03 am
" Leapfrog Enters. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 1:52 pm
 But I have a few problems with the use of this rationale here. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 6:45 am
Intellectual Science and Technology, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 1:56 pm
Instead, the court implicitly adopts the Daubert standard (a standard used in other jurisdictions – ironically, those that don’t even use urine testing – that allows judges to simply take judicial notice of reliability of urine testing). [read post]
