Search for: "State v. Rees" Results 421 - 440 of 564
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2013, 9:16 am by Carl Folsom
  Even though the case seemed a clear example of defense of another, the COA initially denied his claim, stating that it was controlled by the then-recent opinion in State v. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 9:02 pm
 The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, Baze v. [read post]
23 May 2009, 8:54 am
This should cause us all to pause and, as Justice Stevens recently urged in Baze v. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 8:31 am by Steve Hall
The decision was an exception to the United States Supreme Court decision in April 2008 in Baze v. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 2:51 am by gmlevine
Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (<eastman-chemical.com>) made an even more radical contribution by stating (perhaps inadvertently given that the domain name is identical to the trademark) that “[f]ree speech cannot be used as a defense against the use of a confusingly similar mark as a domain name.” The Panel in Equality Charter School, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 2:43 am by gmlevine
Forum Sept. 7, 2005) (<eastman-chemical.com>) made an even more radical contribution by stating (perhaps inadvertently given that the domain name is identical to the trademark) that “[f]ree speech cannot be used as a defense against the use of a confusingly similar mark as a domain name.” The Panel in Equality Charter School, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 9:00 pm
Kentucky's protocol lacksbasic safeguards used by other States to confirm that an inmate is unconscious before injection of the second and 2 BAZE v. [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 12:36 pm by David M. McLain
The economic loss rule does not bar recovery for damages based on pre-contractual fraud where the fraud induced a plaintiff to enter the contract, as discussed in Van Rees v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 3:03 pm
Rees (2008), the Court upheld Kentucky’s method of lethal injection. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 9:47 am by Steve Hall
" The ruling also implied that the state's reticence left defendant Landrigan unable to meet his burden under the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Baze v. [read post]