Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 4081 - 4100
of 4,575
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
14 Dec 2009, 7:00 pm
The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 10:24 am
"), I used the term mainly because that is the standard translation of Rousseau's point. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 5:57 am
Also, how does Katz's "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard fit in? [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 10:20 am
Dale and Rosenberger v. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 7:12 am
Helen would also like to see more precise definitions of the exact harms that women are experiencing only online. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 9:28 am
(Such standards might be useful in creating more precise rules, if one considers worry about possible bias or appearance of possible bias alongside other policies. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 6:09 am
The rule would not limit the use of ratings in Rule 144A offerings that are not followed by such an exchange offer. [read post]
9 Dec 2009, 3:13 am
Prysock, the court observed that “no talismanic incantation” of the “precise formulation of warnings” is required, and reiterated that eight years later in Duckworth v. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 5:26 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 1:30 pm
I always tell my con law students that just because we spend time on Marbury v. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 6:48 pm
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 When I was a young boy, they used to say: "What's good for General Motors is good for this country. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 2:50 pm
See United States v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 2:35 pm
., v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 8:48 am
This Friday the New Hampshire Superior Court will hear oral argument in the latest Dartmouth College alumni case (Brooks v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 7:00 am
Nonetheless, a number of the Justices on the Court specifically referred to arguments made by "amici" and used language almost precisely from the amicus brief written by law faculty. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 7:55 pm
Finally, Part VIII borrows from philosophical frameworks to formulate a standard that helps differentiate between effective and ineffective prohibition. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 7:25 pm
The court's total deference to the stated reasons for a taking establishes a standard so minimal, it is doubtful that even the majority in Kelo v. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 11:24 am
(See Brescia v. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 11:24 am
(See Brescia v. [read post]
