Search for: "State v. Warner" Results 401 - 420 of 1,296
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2017, 10:23 am by Jordan Brunner
Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), chairman of the SSCI, told reporters he hasn’t made a decision about whether Flynn should testify, while Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), the ranking Democrat on the committee, has said that he should. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 1:22 pm by Andrew Hamm
Ed. 2d 726 (2016) (concurred in opinion) Court’s determination not unreasonable and counsel not deficient Warner v. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 9:26 am by Jordan Brunner
Quinta Jurecic posted the Lawfare Podcast: Goldsmith v. [read post]
17 Jan 2017, 7:52 am by J. Gordon Hylton
When not coaching the Cavaliers, Heikkinen divided his time between his legal studies and his involvement with the University of Virginia’s Flight Preparatory School which was established as part of the United States Navy’s V-12 program during the Second World War. [read post]
6 Jan 2017, 5:50 am by Justin S. Daniel
District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in Franciscan Alliance v. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 1:00 pm by Robert Laplaca
In July, the FTC charged Warner Bros. with making inadequate disclosures in videos of influencers playing a new video game. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am by Ben
The BPI, which represents the three major recorded music labels, Universal, Sony and Warner as well as many independent labels, sent its first takedown request to Google in July 2011. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 9:10 am by Brian Cordery
Prior to Sandoz I, Arnold J had held a number of claims of Warner-Lambert’s patent for the use of pregabalin in pain invalid including claim 1 (pain) and claim 3 (neuropathic pain) (“Warner-Lambert V” according to Arnold J’s nomenclature). [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 6:57 am by Juan C. Antúnez
 As noted by Judge Warner’s strong dissent in the linked-to case above: The right to marry is a fundamental right, protected by the United States Constitution. [read post]
12 Dec 2016, 6:57 am by Juan C. Antúnez
 As noted by Judge Warner’s strong dissent in the linked-to case above: The right to marry is a fundamental right, protected by the United States Constitution. [read post]