Search for: "John Does 1, 2, 3" Results 5041 - 5060 of 7,891
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Dec 2006, 6:27 pm
    It does not help that Sam's life sounds so much more interesting than mine, but here goes: 1. [read post]
22 Sep 2018, 8:54 am by Thaddeus Hoffmeister
Consequently, this body of case law has yielded four different holdings: (1) jurors are eligible for coverage because of how the statutes have been interpreted, (2) public policy requires jurors’ eligibility, (3) jurors are not eligible for coverage because of how the statutes have been interpreted, and (4) public policy precludes jurors’ eligibility. [read post]
24 May 2011, 12:11 pm by Gritsforbreakfast
  125% of the 2011 HHS Poverty GuidelinesPersons in Family 48 Contiguous States and D.C. 1 $   13,612.50 2 $   18,387.50 3 $   23,162.50 4 $   27,937.50 5 $   32,712.50 6 $   37,487.50 7 $   42,262.50 8 $   47,037.50 For each additional person, add $     4,775.00   Those qualifying for the Indigency Program will pay 10 percent of the … [read post]
10 Sep 2021, 7:25 am by Marcia Coyle
At the time, the Constitution included a now obsolete “Fugitive Slave Clause” in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 8:15 am by Michael Ginsborg
[In the Matter of the Adoption of John Doe, 2008 WL 5070056 (Fla. 16th Cir. [read post]
25 Jul 2024, 2:45 pm by Audrey A Millemann
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), the Supreme Court held that the determination of obviousness requires four sets of factual findings: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations such as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, the failure of others, copying by others, and industry praise. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 5:47 am by Eugene Volokh
This test has four prongs: (1) whether the objector's beliefs are sincerely held; (2) whether the state regulation burdens the exercise of religious beliefs; (3) whether the state interest in the regulation is overriding or compelling; and (4) whether the state regulation uses the least restrictive means…. [read post]
3 Mar 2007, 11:49 am
Not unlike the 3/1, 5/1, 7/1 and other variations on this theme that also have been around for years. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 10:23 am by WSLL
That provision does not apply in this case because: 1) the Division originally determined Appellant’s injury was not compensable; 2) she does not identify any evidence in the record indicating that, once the Division determined her injury was compensable, the employer objected; and 3) as we stated earlier, her health care provider did not properly certify that she was temporarily totally disabled under Wyoming law. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 11:01 am by Chimène Keitner
This impulse might be understandable, but it does not justify judicial rewriting of the ATS. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 6:58 am by Chris Castle
Moreover, Google, the Individual Defendants, and Flux Factory, Inc., conspired with certain venture capital firms (Does 1, 2, and 3) in order to assist in the development of the Flux Enterprise. [read post]