Search for: "Levell v. State" Results 5901 - 5920 of 29,825
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2018, 1:10 pm by Bill Marler
These claims were substantially altered through major tort reform in 2002, completed on a state/territory level. [read post]
18 Oct 2015, 9:32 am by INFORRM
Given the differing traditions from which its judges are drawn, and bearing in mind that the court has not regarded the award of just satisfaction as its principal concern, it is not altogether surprising that it has generally dealt with the subject relatively briefly, and has offered little explanation of its reasons for awarding particular amounts or for declining to make an award”, per Lord Reed, Regina (Faulkner) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] 2 AC 254 [34]. [read post]
23 Mar 2014, 10:30 am by David Han
A few terms back, in United States v. [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 8:10 pm by Josh Blackman, guest-blogging
One week after the Affordable Care Act became law, HHS responded with an ominous and pointed letter: “In order to retain the current level of existing funding, the state would need to comply with the new conditions under the ACA. [read post]
3 Jan 2016, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
 It stated that the claimant had been passing confidential information to ex-employees of CSP who were working for a rival agency and that criminal proceedings were being considered (for the full text, see [4]). [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 1:22 pm by Michael McCann
1 HARVARD JOURNAL OF SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW 40 (2010)On May 24, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its eagerly anticipated decision in American Needle, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2010, 12:45 am by Indefensible
Thanks to my old colleague Frank for passing this to me:Some Excerpts from United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 1:14 pm by Brian Stull
McWilliams and Davila yet again show the inadequate representation many poor people facing execution receive – McWilliams at the trial level, where the defendant was denied an appointed mental-health expert to aid in his defense, and Davila at the critical level of direct appeals. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 6:19 am by Schachtman
J & J recited without comment or criticism what plaintiffs’ expert witnesses had testified, much of which was quite objectionable.[16] For instance, Moline and Felsher both reprised the scientifically and judicially debunked views that there is “no known safe level of exposure,” from which they inferred the non-sequitur that “any amount above ordinary background levels – could cause ovarian cancer. [read post]