Search for: "State v. Berger" Results 481 - 500 of 549
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2025, 5:50 am by John Mikhail
For more on Elk, its context, and its aftermath, see this informative article by Professor Bethany Berger, along with Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in Haaland v. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check served as lead counsel for the class. 3.) [read post]
3 Dec 2011, 3:19 pm by Andrew Koppelman
Now that Raoul Berger has died, there is to my knowledge no originalist who does not think that originalism, properly understood, supports the result in Brown v. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by Narintohn Luangrath
Hall notes that under the test Justice Gorsuch articulates in his Gundy v. [read post]
21 Sep 2015, 10:55 am by Elim
Berger, Emma Cunliffe &James Stribopoulos, Criminal Law and Procedure: Cases and Materials, 11th ed. [read post]
5 Nov 2021, 3:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
But make sure to include the following language: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) that this statement about my vaccination status is true and accurate. [read post]
16 Mar 2021, 1:06 pm by Phil Dixon
Justice Berger, joined by Justices Newby and Barringer, dissented. [read post]
11 Apr 2008, 9:00 am
No problem…: Lundbeck A/S v Generics UK Ltd & Ors: (IPKat), Exelon (Rivastigmine Tartrate) – Dr Reddy’s and Novartis settle Exelon patent dispute: (Therapeutics Daily), GeneMaker – Codon Devices, Blue Heron Biotechnology settle patent suit over gene synthesis platform: (Patent Docs), Glucophage (Metformin) – Depomed settles patent litigation against IVAX: (SmartBrief), (IP Law360), (GenericsWeb), Lexapro… [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 10:20 am by Phil Dixon
(1) Trial court’s instructions that the jury “will determine what the assault was” did not amount to an improper expression of opinion on the evidence in context; (2) The trial court’s response to a jury question during deliberations regarding a prior conviction was an not impermissible expression of opinion on the evidence State v. [read post]