Search for: "Levell v. State"
Results 4241 - 4260
of 29,814
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jul 2016, 1:22 am
Infringement - The de minimis principle in quia timet actionsThe de minimis principle has been considered in previous patent authorities (Hoechst v BP [1998], Monsanto v Cargill [2007], Napp v Ratiopharm [2009], Lundbeck v Norpharma [2011]). [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 1:17 pm
This is certainly good police work, and at some level, I'm impressed with the talent of the officers here. [read post]
8 May 2024, 2:00 pm
There's surely a right to informational privacy at some level, but the biographical information at issue isn't all that intimate, and it's protected from public dissemination anyway, and the text of the Second Amendment only covers the right to bear arms, not to keep the stuff secret from a Legislatively-chosen group of researchers who are helping the Legislature draft policy, particularly when numerous other public officials already have unchallenged access to this same… [read post]
10 Jul 2024, 10:31 am
Rightly so.I'm less confident that Justice Wiley is correct when he says "This mental state—requiring only proof that Canales voluntarily inserted his finger or penis into his stepdaughter’s vagina, without any further level of mental culpability—satisfies the presumption of mandatory culpability. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 7:36 am
Must give them actuals v budget. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 7:28 am
” This appears to be the first endorsement by an appellate court of the approach taken by Mr Justice Mitting on this issue in the case of TLT v (1) The Secretary of State for the Home Department and (2) The Home Office [2016] EWHC 2217. [read post]
31 Aug 2009, 11:18 am
Nonetheless, on a state-law topic like this -- one with a lot of cases, and a lot of detail, but which you don't see on the federal level every day -- the end product is an opinion that's often superficial as well as (in my opinion) materially wrong. [read post]
30 Dec 2020, 4:49 pm
"The Court of Appeal thus concludes: "Since the state has failed to carry its burden, we conclude that section 2076 is invalid as a facially overbroad regulation of speech that does not survive even the intermediate level of review that applies to commercial speech. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 10:14 am
The decision in State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 11:33 am
R(on the application of S and KF) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 1810 (Admin)- read judgment This case about prisoner’s pay provides an interesting up to date analysis of the role of the doctrine of “margin of appreciation” and its applicability in domestic courts. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 2:48 am
In the historic ruling of Hamdan v. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 8:30 am
He was counsel of record for the 30 amicus states in Davila v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 2:05 am
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Lloyd v Google LLC [2019] EWCA Civ 1599, a decision with significant implications for data protection law and practice. [read post]
29 May 2010, 4:23 pm
All state laws vary. [read post]
19 Aug 2015, 7:03 am
Juarez v. [read post]
10 Jun 2014, 4:48 am
First, this blog by the “Activist Investor” stated a belief that CEOs shouldn’t serve on the board at all, much less serve as the board chair. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 11:12 am
Last month, a political activist posted hidden camera footage taken during oral argument in McCutcheon v. [read post]
26 Mar 2013, 3:03 pm
In a sign that we are all federalists now--or at least for today--Justice Sotomayor suggested that the marriage question should “perk” at the state level before the Court gets involved. [read post]
8 Jan 2016, 4:59 am
Doctor’s Associates Inc. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2013, 12:35 pm
The case is Kransky v. [read post]
