Search for: "SMITH v. STATE OF MAINE"
Results 41 - 60
of 718
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Aug 2023, 2:14 am
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with Lord Justice Arnold giving the leading judgment and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lady Justice Falk in agreement. [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 3:00 am
Wise Smith & Assocs. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2023, 7:24 am
To illustrate, in Shore v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 3:35 am
It claims that the main purpose of the anti-discrimination law is not to regulate conduct but speech: “Colorado seeks to compel [Smith’s] speech in order to excise certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue. [read post]
4 Jul 2023, 10:27 am
One of the main sponsors of the bill, Sen. [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 10:41 am
Yesterday's closing argument in Federal Trade Commission v. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 2:09 pm
In Europe the main outcome of this debate was the E-Commerce Directive, passed at the turn of the century and implemented in the UK in 2002. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 1:42 pm
Blume v. [read post]
6 Jun 2023, 7:18 pm
Smith. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 6:00 am
Hall stated that respondent should have disclosed the SIG Sauer handgun on his 2020 employee personal information form, filed with petitioner on April 22, 2020, and he should have disclosed the Smith and Wesson rifle on the 2019 and 2020 forms (Tr. 69, 71-72). [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 6:00 am
Hall stated that respondent should have disclosed the SIG Sauer handgun on his 2020 employee personal information form, filed with petitioner on April 22, 2020, and he should have disclosed the Smith and Wesson rifle on the 2019 and 2020 forms (Tr. 69, 71-72). [read post]
24 May 2023, 6:37 am
Factual and Procedural Background The main facts of the case have been known for some time (and are detailed and periodically updated in a Just Security chronology). [read post]
12 Apr 2023, 6:33 am
See, United States v. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 1:16 pm
But the main practical effects are two. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 5:18 am
Similarly, Hacon HHJ stated in Teva v Novartis [2022] EWHC 2847 (Pat): “It seems that there was little or no interaction between Novartis’ three experts during the preparation of their evidence. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 2:48 pm
The main case on this issue discussed at oral argument was United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2023, 2:40 pm
See Knick v. [read post]
23 Mar 2023, 7:01 am
Two death penalty cases The state of Alabama sentenced Kenneth Eugene Smith, the respondent in Hamm v. [read post]
14 Mar 2023, 5:08 am
Clifford Smith SC of Des Voeux Chambers, Mr. [read post]
13 Mar 2023, 7:17 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
