Search for: "State v. Word" Results 5521 - 5540 of 40,650
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jan 2013, 4:43 am by Susan Brenner
’ However, the Dictionary Act, 1 U.S Code § 1, which defines terms used in the United States Code `unless the context indicates otherwise,’ specifies that the word `person’ includes `corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 5:39 pm by Venkat
I would expect that this may not be the last word, and the Supreme Court may end up weighing in on this case. [read post]
31 May 2014, 1:34 pm by Michael Lowe
Under the CSA, there are five classification schedules (Schedules I – V) for their regulation, with Schedule I being the most restrictive and Schedule V the least. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 5:12 am by SHG
The best part of the New York Court of Appeals memorandum opinion in Haug v. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 6:10 am by Gerard N. Magliocca
As I explain in this article that will appear shortly in Rutgers Law Review, Congress has the authority to count states as ratifying an Article V amendment even when those states subsequently rescinded their ratification. [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 8:29 am by David Cosgrove
Last month the Supreme Court of Mississippi handed down its 6-3 split opinion in the matter of Harrington v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 4:30 am by Jim Dedman
 In its own words, the rule itself provides: Objections to questions during the oral deposition are limited to “Objection,leading” and “Objection, form. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 4:57 am by David Smith
It is a conjoined appeal of Universal Estates v Tiensia and Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 4:57 am by David Smith
It is a conjoined appeal of Universal Estates v Tiensia and Honeysuckle Properties v Fletcher. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 11:41 pm
Such is the case with Lima v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 10:51 am by Dan Markel
Thanks to Tony Sebok, my attention was just adverted to United States v. [read post]