Search for: "Doe v. State" Results 5361 - 5380 of 93,909
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2024, 5:11 am by Daniel M. Kowalski
However, the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Kazarian does not actually impose a final merits determination, nor does this requirement appear anywhere in the relevant regulatory criteria. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 4:48 am
But this does not mean that reform cannot be achieved. [read post]
25 Jun 2022, 6:58 am
Which case does Obergefell cite? [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 7:28 am by Ben Henriques, Corker Binning
In brief, the case of R v Egan [1992] 4 All ER 470 had stated (without the court having heard full argument) that the previous case of R v Lloyd [1967] 1 QB 175 legitimised two approaches to defining ‘substantial’ in the context of diminished responsibility. [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 3:41 pm by Amy Howe
In Aug. 2022, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 5:17 pm by Mack Sperling
 No, because the state trademark statute says that: registration does not authorize the use . . . of a name in violation of the rights of any third party under . . . the trademark act of this State, or other statutory or common law, and is not a defense to an action for violation of any of those rights N.C. [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 6:44 pm by Matthew Nied
Because no such requirement exists in Canada, plaintiffs may enjoy a juridical advantage by pursuing their defamation claims in Canada rather than in the United States. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 9:37 am by The Docket Navigator
The Complaint implies, but does not actually state, that Defendant's 'electrical systems' infringed Plaintiff's patents, but provides no details about which 'electrical systems' are at issue. . . . [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 9:13 pm by Bill Otis
 It's an easy guess that it comes to us from the Ninth Circuit:In United States v. [read post]