Search for: "Commonwealth v. Good" Results 441 - 460 of 1,104
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2016, 10:58 am by Heidi A. Nadel
and requirements for instructions to the grand jury (Commonwealth v. [read post]
10 Sep 2016, 11:31 pm
These provisions draw upon (but are not precisely equivalent to) section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which reads as follows:On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported before the imposition of uniform duties of customs into any State, or into any Colony which, whilst the… [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 9:26 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
  That said, it’s generally a very good idea for all bicyclists to wear a helmet. [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 9:26 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
  That said, it’s generally a very good idea for all bicyclists to wear a helmet. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 1:31 pm
§§1321-24]’s definition of “current employee” means former employee, as was held by the Commonwealth Court in this case when it erroneously relied on nonprecedential dicta in an earlier Commonwealth Court decision (Beitman v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 7:45 am by Kelly Buchanan
June 13, 2016, was the 50th anniversary of the famous Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 6:11 am by Lorene Park
The supervisor allegedly made numerous comments to the employee about her sexual orientation and appearance, such as “I want to turn you back into a woman” and “You would look good in a dress,” and made sexually suggestive gestures. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 2:48 pm by Kevin LaCroix
John Reed Stark As I noted in a recent post, on June 8, 2016, the SEC, in what one commentator called “the most significant SEC cybersecurity-related action to date,” announced that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC had agreed to pay a $1 million penalty to settle charges that as a result of its alleged failure to adopt written policies and procedures reasonably designed to protect customer data, some customer information was hacked and offered for sale online. [read post]