Search for: "State v. Sample"
Results 4081 - 4100
of 4,544
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2009, 3:31 pm
Medinol Ltd. v. [read post]
15 May 2009, 9:14 am
Much of this furor stems from the outrageous decision issued by the Supreme Court in Department of Commerce v. [read post]
7 May 2009, 2:38 pm
Latest Analyis: Scalia v. [read post]
7 May 2009, 2:19 pm
In Kinik v. [read post]
6 May 2009, 7:03 am
United States. [read post]
6 May 2009, 1:48 am
Tuesday's ruling, in Brunson v. [read post]
5 May 2009, 5:51 am
State v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 5:00 am
The case of Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 5:04 am
Woodall objected to the denial of his right to cross-examine, and informed the court that he intended to question the Technical Supervisor on the Intoxilyzer's ability to correlate the temperature of the breath sample. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 2:04 am
DNA samples; offenders Last Act: 04/21/09 REFERRED TO FINANCELast Action Date: 04/22/09(Results Count = ) Bill No. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:25 pm
Products sold in the course of business must be: • of satisfactory quality; • reasonably fit for their stated purpose made known by the buyer to the seller; and • comply with the description applied to them or a sample supplied. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 11:15 am
MacLean then asked the court to take judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit's definition of asbestos in United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 4:20 am
The CAFC noted in SYNTHES v. [read post]
19 Apr 2009, 5:48 pm
Much more entertaining, however, is the description of a footnote exchange between Justices Ginsburg and Scalia in Minnesota v. [read post]
17 Apr 2009, 5:38 pm
Forty-two percent contained toxigenic C. difficile strains (either ribotype 078/toxinotype V [73%] or 027/toxinotype III [NAP1 or NAP1-related; 27%]). [read post]
17 Apr 2009, 4:18 am
State v. [read post]
16 Apr 2009, 3:20 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 6:59 pm
For example, in a sample of 46 non-affirmative action Equal Protection Clause cases, Justices Thomas and Scalia voted to strike down the law only twice; whereas in Bush v Gore, they struck down the recount on Equal Protection grounds, and the pair struck down 19 out of 19 regulations in affirmative action cases for violating the Equal Protection Clause. [read post]
14 Apr 2009, 2:25 am
State v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 10:13 am
To pick one example, when Scalia dissented from a ruling in McIntyre v. [read post]
