Search for: "Core v. Ohio" Results 421 - 440 of 458
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Feb 2009, 3:29 am
Ohio, saying of hard-core pornography "I know it when I see it. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 7:30 pm
On November 18th, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in San Allen v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 7:14 pm
Petition circulation activity constitutes core political speech, and any regulation of that speech is subject to exacting scrutiny. [read post]
15 Aug 2008, 5:00 am
Is this (“Approval Ratings: The Public v. [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 5:45 pm
E. coli bacteria: what are they, where did they come from, and why are some so dangerous? [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 9:22 am
Deters, No. 07-3031 "In a constitutional challenge arising after Ohio, in order to reduce fraudulent signatures, enacted a provision making it a felony to pay anyone for gathering signatures on election-related petitions on any basis other than the time worked, summary judgment against Ohio is affirmed as the provision runs afoul of the First Amendment because it creates a significant burden on a core political speech right that is not narrowly tailored. [read post]
7 Mar 2008, 1:40 pm
Miami Cnty    Southern District of Ohio at DaytonBOYCE F. [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 12:36 pm
 This decision puts Ohio in line with the majority of states on this issue – i.e., that memorized confidential information can serve as the basis for a trade secret violation.At its core, the Al Minor decision clarifies for Ohio the rather unremarkable notion that a trade secret is a trade secret regardless of whether it is memorized or in a more tangible form. [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 10:46 am
Indeed, since the conflict goes to the core of the Agency's administrative expertise - the interpretation of its own regulations - the conflict is probably even more pronounced.In the Kemp phony-violation situation, defense counsel also needs to consider how to get the FDA on record. [read post]
21 Dec 2007, 3:33 am
The focus is on the Supreme Court's recent decision in LULAC v. [read post]