Search for: "True v True"
Results 5021 - 5040
of 33,937
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2009, 11:42 am
Witness the decision of the First Department of New York's Appellate Division in Speranza v. [read post]
18 Nov 2017, 5:17 am
On July 26, 2017 the South Carolina Supreme Court, in the case of Doe v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 12:20 pm
Ever since Marbury v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:23 pm
Stuff like that conflates the two types of res judicata -- issue preclusion ("collateral estoppel"), where we do care about that requirement, as opposed to claim preclusion ("true" res judicata) where we don't. [read post]
6 May 2013, 12:09 pm
It's also true that advocates of medical marijuana have sometimes understood the relevant statutes more broadly than they in fact are. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 1:34 pm
The Ninth Circuit only publishes one opinion today, and it reverses the dismissal of a claim by a Jehovah's Witness that requiring her to take a sworn oath as a condition of state employment violates her right to free exercise of religion as well as Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.Judge Friedland's opinion concisely describes the relevant dispute: "The California Constitution requires all public employees, except those 'as may be by law… [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 2:46 pm
So, if true, that leaves only the California Supreme Court as the entity that could authorize the transfer. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 12:39 pm
" I'm sure that's true. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 6:00 am
Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 4:43 am
Jan. 7, 2011)Gray v. [read post]
21 Apr 2023, 7:30 am
It is true that eliminating an energy source is likely a regulation on that energy source. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:38 am
It is therefore not true, as Defendant claims in her brief, that the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Class C drug trafficker. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:06 pm
In Mosley v. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 8:56 am
Camille Pouli v Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2016 CanLII 48460 (ON LRB) [read post]
16 Nov 2014, 6:00 am
The Supreme Court released a landmark decision earlier this week in the case Bhasin v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm
It doesn’t make the stop unlawful if there is a subsidiary purpose – “killing two birds with one stone” – but the permitted purpose must be the “true and dominant purpose behind the act” (R v Southwark Crown Court ex p. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 7:21 am
State v. [read post]
7 Apr 2012, 9:24 pm
Briggs v. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 5:01 am
State v. [read post]
11 Jul 2009, 3:52 pm
The same is true if Kern was an overnight guest as the privacy interest conveyed by this status, see Minnesota v. [read post]
