Search for: "Strong v. State"
Results 5841 - 5860
of 16,393
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Oct 2017, 5:26 pm
Beginning with a California Supreme Court decision called Comedy III Productions v. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 12:38 pm
The Phillips v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 9:01 pm
In 1972, the Court went further and found in Eisenstadt v. [read post]
9 Oct 2017, 4:53 pm
That is not a change to make without an incredibly compelling reason, including a strong factual basis. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 4:37 pm
As Professor Coffee discusses in his article, in order to address these issues, the district court in Campo v. [read post]
8 Oct 2017, 10:12 am
See Shamoun & Norman, LLP v. [read post]
7 Oct 2017, 1:09 pm
The recent case Linton v DeSoto Cab Company, Inc., illustrates this very well. [read post]
7 Oct 2017, 3:53 am
And in State v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 9:55 am
In U.S. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 8:07 am
(See Hicks v. [read post]
6 Oct 2017, 8:07 am
(See Hicks v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 3:33 pm
A person signing a DMCA notice must state a good faith belief that the use is not authorized, declare her authority to act under penalty of perjury, and risk damages for misrepresentation under section 512(f).[3] That source of protection has not technically disappeared, but its value is largely lost when notices are generated not by a person, but by a machine. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 3:18 pm
” Oneale v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 2:07 pm
That is not a change to make without an incredibly compelling reason, including a strong factual basis. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 1:21 pm
Harman v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:57 am
Groch v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:54 am
The pun seems inevitable: In Wednesday morning’s oral argument in Class v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 4:19 am
Commentary on Jesner v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 4:11 am
The TBA applauds the Supreme Court’s strong leadership on indigent representation reform. [read post]
4 Oct 2017, 11:28 am
Today’s en banc decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. [read post]