Search for: "MATTER OF A W A V"
Results 4161 - 4180
of 8,393
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2007, 3:42 am
SC06-2391 v. [read post]
21 Aug 2019, 3:00 am
State v. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 4:45 pm
{And, though it does not matter to the constitutional issue, the appellate court's conclusion that the order was a TRO and not a preliminary injunction is likely incorrect. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 4:13 am
One reason, I think, is because many times the TM would be part of what doesn’t matter to most consumers, so the account of the consumer compressed only into her response to the TM is inherently contradictory: it is at least not empirical. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
” Palmer v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 7:06 pm
Bowers v. [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 6:40 pm
Div. 2002); G & W, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 4:06 am
Jackson v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 3:29 am
According, said the court, “[w]e need not explore the exact scope of the employee’s rights under Civil Service Law Section 70(2) because his Civil Service status has not been affected by the transfer and no allegation has been made to the contrary. [read post]
30 Mar 2020, 11:39 am
Chase Manufacturing, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 9:56 am
The anatomy of a disputed claim for GML §207-c benefitsParker v Village of Johnson City, 2010 NY Slip Op 50957(U), Decided on May 26, 2010, Supreme Court, Broome County, Ferris D. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 11:39 pm
Accrual, however, is a different matter. [read post]
9 Aug 2017, 7:27 am
People v. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 4:30 am
State Bank v. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 6:06 am
`Consequently, [w]hen a man chooses to avail himself of the privilege of doing business as a corporation, even though he is its sole shareholder, he may not vicariously take on the privilege of the corporation under the Fourth Amendment; documents which he could have protected from seizure, if they had been his own, may be used against him, no matter how they were obtained from the corporation. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 9:30 am
Egyptian coffin seized inUS v. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 2:31 pm
Tries to address 1A issues including US v. [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 11:05 am
Expressive content of photos can be entirely unaltered—Dillon v. [read post]
3 Aug 2022, 6:30 am
Becerra (2018) (dealing with compelled speech regarding abortion), and Janus v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 5:55 am
In particular, HHS notes the statement that “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. [read post]
