Search for: "State v. True"
Results 4901 - 4920
of 21,827
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2020, 7:26 am
Texas, two individuals and 18 states are once again asking the Supreme Court to do what it refused to do eight years ago in National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 10:44 am
In a 14-page opinion on Tuesday, the justices sent his case back to the state courts, holding that the state courts should have applied a different test to determine whether Counterman’s statements were “true threats. [read post]
16 Oct 2006, 9:44 pm
KSR v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 11:14 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 10:00 am
In the case, Woodward v. [read post]
16 May 2019, 4:06 am
Here, even accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, the complaint fails to allege the existence of an attorney-client relationship, privity, or a relationship that otherwise closely resembles privity between the plaintiffs and Leavitt (see DeMartino v Golden, 150 AD3d 1200, 1201; Fredriksen v Fredriksen, 30 AD3d at 371-372; Goldfarb v Schwartz, 26 AD3d 462, 463; Rovello v Klein, 304 AD2d at 638-639). [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 11:43 am
Jape; Stevo Design v. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 12:41 am
Practice point: On a motion for failure to state a cause of action, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the court must afford the complaint a liberal construction, see CPLR 3026; accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true; accord the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference; and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory.Student note: Bare legal conclusions asserted in a complaint, however, are not presumed to be… [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 7:36 am
Supreme Court in McCleskey v. [read post]
14 Nov 2006, 4:31 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 1:44 pm
Nor do I think this is a First Amendment violation, as it's true that the state is "sponsoring" (in a way) the message, but as long as the party pays the marginal cost of this speech -- which it does -- that's reasonable. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 1:46 pm
And, yes, maybe, if there's reason to believe that the defendant would have indeed come back if you'd have told him about the indictment, then that delay is on the government, and should result in dismissal.But none of that seems true here. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 1:40 pm
With that in mind we bring to your attention Windle v. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 6:45 am
This is especially true given that State, by Fried's own admission, qualified his remark by asking "what if you get hit by a bus. [read post]
28 Dec 2022, 5:05 am
And that's mostly true. [read post]
4 Feb 2025, 2:00 am
[I]n Hardy v. [read post]
28 Jun 2009, 10:55 pm
”Ashcroft v. [read post]
11 Jul 2017, 10:45 am
” Indeed, as the court stated in 2010 in Holder v. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 7:04 am
The same is true here. [read post]
