Search for: "State v. Risk"
Results 5761 - 5780
of 28,725
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Sep 2013, 1:35 pm
As noted by the Virginia Supreme Court in Feitig v. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 8:35 am
"On balance, vacating and redacting the District Court’s official acknowledgement ruling is of minimal significance compared to the risk of injury to important security interests of the United States in the event that the ruling is upheld and made public. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 11:36 am
The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State . . . . [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:28 am
In 1999, the United States Supreme Court issued the landmark decision in Olmstead v. [read post]
13 Dec 2018, 11:36 am
Key to that determination are the opinions of the mental health professionals designated by the State Department of State Hospitals (SDSH) to examine the alleged SVP and to consider, among other things, the factors known to be associated with the risk of reoffending. [read post]
3 May 2012, 6:36 am
It held that "A determination by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders that a person who committed an offense in another state must register in New York is reviewable in a proceeding to determine the offender's risk level. [read post]
28 Dec 2010, 7:15 am
Their decision: Zerjal v. [read post]
29 Aug 2008, 4:00 pm
In Matter of Markowitz v. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 12:11 pm
In the case of Brooklyn Savings Bank v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 11:39 am
The 6-3 ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 9:00 pm
From Tax Update Blog: State taxing authorities have long despised the Supreme Court's ruling in Quill v. [read post]
8 Sep 2023, 3:15 pm
White instead argues that revoking abortion rights and compelling pregnancy would allow the state to force someone to take increased risk and harm for the sake of others, which is unprecedented. [read post]
12 Apr 2021, 11:16 am
In State of Michigan v. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 5:25 pm
United States v. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 11:11 am
There is a risk that some lower courts will be too aggressive in constitutionally exempting non-expressive commercial products from anti-discrimination rules. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 11:32 am
In Maslenjak v. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 2:11 am
Comm'n v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 9:29 am
Co. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 9:20 pm
Co. v. [read post]
