Search for: "Strong v. State"
Results 4121 - 4140
of 14,843
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Jan 2020, 1:48 pm
Simon v. [read post]
4 Apr 2013, 7:46 pm
In state and Federal courts throughout the country, the defense and plaintiffs’ bars are debating the application of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
5 Apr 2016, 1:50 pm
“Credibilitydeterminations are entitled to strong deference. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:35 am
It was accepted that the earlier mark held a strong reputation. [read post]
9 Aug 2020, 10:25 am
This could be her elephantState v. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 10:48 am
This could occur, the Appellate Division held, because the defendant was a New Jersey corporation and New Jersey's "strong interest in deterrence" of consumer fraud by New Jersey businesses outweighed all other states' interests. [read post]
3 May 2015, 6:47 pm
–Dallas 2013, no pet. h.) and Ashfaq v. [read post]
27 Mar 2021, 5:01 pm
‘Steep hill to climb’ In a landmark First Amendment case almost 60 years ago, New York Times v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 2:50 pm
The case, Kline v. [read post]
6 May 2015, 5:03 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 10:09 am
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani, with comments from Eric] Mendenhall v. [read post]
8 Mar 2018, 9:01 pm
Term Limits, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
See, also, Laurido v Simon, 489 F. [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
See, also, Laurido v Simon, 489 F. [read post]
30 Mar 2007, 11:37 am
State of Indiana (NFP) Rodney Strong v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 10:09 am
[Post by Venkat Balasubramani with comments from Eric] Woods v. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 3:06 pm
Although those states have their own wage and hour laws, the Court found no evidence that those states had expressed a strong preference to have their overtime laws apply to their citizens when those citizens worked out of state (Indeed, Arizona does not even have a state overtime law). [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 3:00 am
For example, in State v. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 12:46 pm
Spillars regarding Viereck v. [read post]