Search for: "I.S. V. STATE"
Results 421 - 440
of 17,516
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Oct 2020, 2:56 pm
" But the Court of Appeal holds that, notwithstanding this text, the lawyer can also be disqualified from pretrial proceedings as well; i.e., completely disqualified.The underlying case is definitely a messy one. [read post]
10 May 2012, 4:30 am
Mireles v. [read post]
16 Dec 2014, 5:52 am
Shea blogged here about State v. [read post]
13 Dec 2021, 9:00 am
Digital Sin, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 10:08 am
In the case of United States v. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 4:13 am
FOIA is premised upon a wholly different principle, that government records should be accessible to any member of the public, i.e., the public at large, without any showing of need.[5] Thus, at its core, FOIA effectuates “the abstract public interest in open government. [read post]
19 Mar 2023, 1:30 pm
For instance, it might be that the state law issue is intertwined with the federal law issue (i.e. it is not "independent") as in Michigan v. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 9:19 am
The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari (i.e. it will hear the appeal) in the case of 08-1423 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION V. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 9:26 am
[reflections from Robert Leider on the oral argument in Torres v. [read post]
17 Dec 2023, 2:43 pm
Precedent from the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. [read post]
24 Jan 2009, 1:33 pm
United States. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 10:29 pm
Whilst this does have a bearing upon Mrs Justice Pauffley's decision, it is not central, and I shall therefore concentrate on the essential facts, which can be stated briefly:1. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
Additionally, the particular hazard encountered by petitioner, i.e., the elevation change lying beyond the third fence, "could have been reasonably anticipated" (Matter of Stancarone v DiNapoli, 161 AD3d 144, 148-150 [2018]; see Matter of Scofield v DiNapoli, 125 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2015]), notwithstanding petitioner's testimony that vegetation partially obscured his view of the terrain. [read post]
30 Apr 2023, 2:06 pm
The United States Supreme Court vacated the affirmance in June 2022, when it granted Uber’s petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 11:21 am
On March 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision in Knepper v. [read post]
