Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 481 - 500
of 4,544
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2010, 12:26 pm
For all those who hoped the Supreme Court would use this case tooffer clarity, well, there's always next time.Bilski v. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 5:54 am
The majority also found that the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard for an extended term did not violate the constitutional requirement that the State must prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 2:22 pm
Sometimes “privity” is used for the “legallyidentified” category, which covers a number of bases forbinding a non-liable person to obligations imposed on aliable person; but whatever the labels, both categories arewell established in the law and recognized as within the“active concert or participation” standard of Rule 65(d).See Golden State Bottling Co. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 8:01 pm
Cohen v. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 1:41 pm
As the Court of Appeals stated in People v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 11:42 am
Sullivan standard. [read post]
23 Nov 2013, 3:14 pm
We argue that: Under the Supreme Court’s standard in District of Columbia v. [read post]
28 Dec 2014, 1:34 pm
New York attorneys should remember that, as explained by the New York Court of Appeals, although the language of the State and Federal constitutional privacy guarantees (US Const 4th Amend; NY Const, art 1, Sec 12) are identical, this Court of Appeals has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to adopt more protective standards under the State Constitution , "when doing so best promotes 'predictability and precision in judicial review… [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 10:00 am
" Further, said the court, “as long as the legislature makes the basic policy choices, the legislation need not be detailed or precise as to the agency's role. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:53 pm
LEXIS 4278, at 40-44 (citing Morillion v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 6:19 am
As the Court reminds us, you do not need a case that is precisely on point to show that the law governing that activity violates clearly-established law. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 5:40 am
Malesco to the effect that ”deterrence is . . . precisely the purpose of Bivens. [read post]
17 Nov 2017, 12:06 pm
United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2018, 8:40 am
Case citation: Gonzalez v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 1:27 am
In U.S. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 2:35 pm
In Bivens v. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 10:12 am
” Together, these revisions would bring us back (in several circuits) to a likelihood of dilution standard, make that standard uniform, more precisely define dilution, and give owners of famous marks a much better idea how to avail themselves of federal protection. [read post]
26 May 2015, 11:38 am
Many of the worst patents out there are easily wielded as weapons precisely because they are very broad (meaning they are often infringed) but also likely invalid (often as a result of Alice v. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 9:01 pm
Under Edwards v. [read post]
18 Jan 2021, 8:15 am
The court rejects a similar analysis: “Notably missing from these arguments, however, is citation to authority approving the use of Facebook or Twitter’s community standards in analyzing whether the First Amendment is infringed. [read post]
