Search for: "Light v. State Bar"
Results 5261 - 5280
of 5,598
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2008, 10:03 pm
Because of these FTC “mandates,” as the company calls them, federal policy on cigarette marketing of “light” cigarettes bars states from allowing lawsuits in their courts challenging the use of such words or phrases, the appeal contends. [read post]
9 Jul 2008, 1:00 pm
” Despite having an established error rate of between 10% and 30%, courts have upheld the use of breathalyzers because their results must be considered in light of other evidence: “In State v. [read post]
9 Jul 2008, 8:57 am
SRI Int'l v. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 6:00 am
But here the interpretation in U.S. v. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 1:08 pm
Germany's ban extends only to prisoners whose crimes target the integrity of the state or the democratic order, such as political insurgents. [read post]
6 Jul 2008, 11:02 pm
Penalties for election offences which are classed as corrupt practices mean that the convicted offender will be barred from holding elective office for 5 years and in the case of offences relating to postal or proxy votes the offender will also be barred from voting for a period of 5 years. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 5:22 pm
(See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2008, 11:30 am
Boussi denied that Light ever was a shareholder and also asserted as affirmative defenses that Light lacked legal capacity to sue, and that Light's claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 3:36 am
Bar No. 0330541 PETER J. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 6:26 pm
Railway Co. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 6:15 pm
However, to succeed on an excessive force claim, a plaintiff must still show that the officers' actions were unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the arrest. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 8:07 am
Barker v. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 4:00 am
Ct. 2156 (1978); United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 3:40 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: ECJ rules trade mark holders cannot stop honest comparative advertising: O2 Holdings Limited and O2 (UK) Limited v Hutchinson 3G UK Limited: (Out-Law), (Catch Us If You Can!!!) [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 7:48 pm
Here is how Tymkovich (who, by the way, argued on behalf of the state of Colorado unsuccessfully in Romer v. [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 4:32 pm
In Bridge v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 5:47 pm
[cites omitted] However, in light of our supreme court's rationale in Lambert v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
However, defendants' sentences are remanded for reconsideration on the issue of the crack/powder cocaine disparity in light of Kimbrough. [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 6:35 am
A simple hypothetical drawn from the facts in San Antonio v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 10:32 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
