Search for: "State v. Light"
Results 4181 - 4200
of 25,969
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2024, 1:48 pm
There's a California Supreme Court case called People v. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 12:46 pm
The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General for remand to that court for consideration of the granted issue in light of United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2017, 7:10 am
State v. [read post]
31 Oct 2024, 6:00 am
This decision sheds light on how murky the waters can be when the IRS seeks to collect from one party in a marriage. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 4:26 am
The decision is National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 10:11 am
(See United States of America v. 1.41 Acres of Land (N.D. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 5:13 pm
This issue arose in a case decided by the New Mexico Supreme Court on August 25, 2009 in the case of State v. [read post]
13 Oct 2017, 4:41 pm
In the judgment in the case Becker v. [read post]
13 Oct 2016, 12:02 pm
Within a few days of each other, the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had Apple v. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 10:50 pm
State v. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 1:01 pm
Additionally, as a practical matter, some service providers already require a search warrant before disclosing stored content to law enforcement based on the Sixth Circuit’s 2010 decision in United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2025, 6:00 am
at 128, citing Fetahu v New Jersey Tr. [read post]
29 Jan 2025, 6:00 am
at 128, citing Fetahu v New Jersey Tr. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 5:27 pm
The issue in Good was whether cigarette companies could be sued under state law for deceptive advertising of "light cigarettes". [read post]
4 Jun 2008, 11:10 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 8:38 am
In Sonic-Calabasas A, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 1:11 pm
Supreme Court ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. [read post]
9 May 2016, 4:00 am
The Appellate Divisions said that this argument was unavailing in light of his disciplinary history, citing Gomez v Kelly, 55 AD3d 305, reversed 12 NY3d 883 [Gomez I].In Gomez I the Appellate Division said that substantial evidence supported the findings that Gomez violated [1] his commanding officer's order to terminate his involvement in a criminal investigation; [2] failed to take possession of drugs during a police department integrity test; [3] failed to voucher his… [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 2:53 pm
The specified issue: “Whether, in light of United States v. [read post]
7 Jan 2012, 7:20 am
United States v. [read post]
