Search for: "State v. Person"
Results 5321 - 5340
of 76,236
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2015, 11:48 am
”On July 11, 1994, defendant was committed to a state mental hospital. [read post]
13 May 2013, 5:14 am
State v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 3:24 pm
The case of State v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 3:24 pm
The case of State v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 12:31 pm
Supreme Court in the 2014 case Daimler AG v. [read post]
31 May 2023, 11:45 am
The Court’s opinion in Sackett v. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 7:57 am
A public employee’s retirement allowance paid by a public retirement system of this State ruled subject to the provisions of the Son of Sam Law New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Raucci, 2012 NY Slip Op 04440, Appellate Division, Third Department The issue in this action: Does Retirement and Social Security Law §110* insulate the retirement benefits from a public retirement system of this State from “the broad reach of the Son of Sam Law,… [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 4:15 am
" discussing the FCC v. [read post]
5 May 2014, 1:14 pm
: GPO, United States Commission of Civil Rights, 1970. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 4:39 am
State v. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:08 pm
As Eady J said in X & Y v Persons Unknown[2006] EWHC 2783 (QB), [2007] EMLR 290 at para 72: “…the Spycatcher doctrine [Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc [1988] Ch 333 at 375, 380] would go on inhibiting third parties from publishing the relevant information notionally pending a trial which would never actually take place. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 4:01 am
The United States Supreme Court had just decided Lawrence v. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 9:00 pm
Miller v. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 3:05 pm
On October 6, 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the Pennsylvania anti-counterfeiting law in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 9:21 am
The Court of Appeals says the plaintiff can sue these fellas under Section 1983.The case is Gleason v. [read post]
21 Jun 2019, 8:29 am
However, the guidance given in the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Code of Practice (2011) (“the Code”), states that it means that the disabled person ‘must have been put at a disadvantage’ (see para 5.7). [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 7:04 am
A recent case before the Michigan Supreme Court, Estate of Sholberg v. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 12:07 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
14 Jun 2008, 7:40 pm
Both federal and state OSHA impose rules requiring employees to wear "personal protective equipment" such as work boots, safety goggles, etc. [read post]
