Search for: "Blood v. Blood" Results 5361 - 5380 of 7,197
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 May 2011, 1:14 pm by Tony Mauro
In a speech last night, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made clear his displeasure with the Court's recent decision in Connick v. [read post]
3 May 2011, 12:15 pm by John Elwood
  Ducasse presents the question “[w]hether the admission of a certificate of compliance issued by the manufacturer of blood collection tubes used in blood alcohol kits stating that the chemical additives in the tubes ‘will not disturb the integrity of the blood sample relative to alcohol content’ was a testimonial statement” for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. [read post]
3 May 2011, 7:16 am by Layla Kuhl
  MCL 257.625c provides that a person who operates a vehicle upon a public highway is considered to have given implied consent to chemical tests of his or her blood, breath, or urine. [read post]
2 May 2011, 12:42 pm by Chuck Ramsay
  While this “single factor exigency” doctrine has never been approved in urine test cases, the trial court did so in the case of Swanson v. [read post]
2 May 2011, 8:17 am by Susan Cartier Liebel
New blood reinvigorates the Trusts and Estates classroom as  Victor Medina provides a new guest lecture – What’s New in Trusts and Estates. [read post]
27 Apr 2011, 7:28 am by Stefanie Levine
Patent No. entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REMOTE BLOOD ALCOHOL MONITORING and owned by Alcohol Monitoring Systems. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 1:30 pm by The Law Office of Nancy King
Some Alco-Sensor V breathalyzers used in Ventura County have been found to give inaccurate readings in a number of DUI cases in January through March of this year. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 1:25 pm by WIMS
PFOA also has accumulated in the plaintiffs' blood and has been detected in the homes of other customers of the Water Department. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 9:53 am by Kent Scheidegger
On Friday, counsel for the Governor of California asked leave to file a supplement brief in Brown v. [read post]