Search for: "State v. Plain"
Results 501 - 520
of 11,814
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2015, 8:39 am
The court found two D.C. cases instructive: In Accurate Construction Co. v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 6:25 am
His case was recently decided by the Seventh Circuit in United States v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 11:39 am
Last fall, the Court heard oral arguments in Holt v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 2:26 pm
US v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 8:57 am
In United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 1:07 pm
State v. [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 3:15 pm
21 Feb 2010, 6:07 am
State v. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 6:01 am
United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2021, 11:43 pm
Prosecutors say no but the plain language of the new misdemeanor judicial diversion statute PC 1001.95 clearly states that it applies to all misdemeanors except those specifically excluded. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 6:57 am
The District Court held that the creditor thereby waived its right to bring the argument on appeal as the “civil plain error rule” exception did not apply.Preservation of ErrorThe U.S Supreme Court held in Hormel v. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 6:57 am
The District Court held that the creditor thereby waived its right to bring the arguments on appeal as the “civil plain error rule” exception did not apply.Preservation of ErrorThe U.S Supreme Court held in Hormel v. [read post]
17 Jan 2009, 1:34 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2008, 9:38 am
A New York state intermediate appeals court recently upheld the “plain meaning” of a so-called “insured v. insured” exclusion contained in a not-for-profit directors and officers liability policy, but narrowly construed the exclusion. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 8:23 pm
The petition of the day is: Serrano-Mercado v. [read post]
18 May 2015, 9:12 am
After oral argument, the outcome in Henderson v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 11:05 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 11:36 pm
In October 2012, a majority of the High Court ruled that even though the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth) restricted the intellectual property rights of the tobacco companies and regulated the packaging and presentation of tobacco products, the legislation was not an “acquisition” under section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, as there was no proprietary benefit or advantage conferred on the Commonwealth of Australia (JT International SA v… [read post]
26 Sep 2007, 4:42 am
State v. [read post]
