Search for: "Bear v. State" Results 4341 - 4360 of 14,845
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Oct 2018, 6:56 am by Robert Brammer
The company that discovered the shipwreck in question in 2016, Global Marine Salvage, filed an in rem action titled, Global Marine Exploration, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 7:40 pm by Brian Shiffrin
” If a juror’s statements during voir dire raise a doubt about his impartiality, such as statements that he has a pre-formed opinion about the case, that juror cannot be permitted to sit unless he states unequivocally that he can be fair and decide the case solely on the evidence adduced at trial (People v Johnson, 17 NY3d 752, 753 [2011]; People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362-363 [2001]; People v… [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 10:14 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
United States (Endangered Species Act – Grizzly Bears) Aguilar v. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 9:53 am by Al Catalano
  Relying on its novel view of Section 253(c), the Commission concluded “while it might well be fair for providers to bear basic, reasonable costs of entry, the record does not reveal why it would be fair or reasonable from the standpoint of protecting providers to require them to bear costs beyond that level, particularly in the context of the deployment of Small Wireless Facilities. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 4:34 pm by Jeremy Gordon
Srinivasan challenges Phillips’ third contention, suggesting that United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 1:02 pm by Dennis Crouch
We must be clear, lest we perpetuate the current state. [read post]
The state argued that since the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza (referred to by Israel as the “disengagement”), Israel ceased to bear responsibility for Gaza and the manner of Hamas’s rule renders the territory a “hostile area. [read post]
21 Sep 2018, 8:33 am by Wolfgang Demino
" Law Research Serv., Inc. v Crook, 36 AD2d 912, 912 (1st Dept 1971)(no long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state attorney whose only connection to the state is that he hired New York attorney to represent his client in a Texas proceeding).This situation is markedly different from other cases finding jurisdiction based on the engagement of a New York lawyer or law firm by an out-of-state entity. [read post]