Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 6121 - 6140
of 16,704
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Aug 2018, 6:00 am
R (DA & Ors) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (expedited) was heard on 17 until 19 July 2018. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 6:39 am
Broccoli, Williams v. [read post]
Employer could not rely on incomplete info to assert honest belief employee was uncooperative in IME
3 Dec 2013, 8:21 am
The employee’s religious discrimination and harassment claims failed, however (Bloomfield v Whirlpool Corp, November 27, 2013, Helmick, J). [read post]
18 Jan 2023, 4:45 am
Co-author Brittany Blakey The takeaway from Hahn v. [read post]
15 Apr 2007, 2:20 pm
On Monday, April 16, the Court will hear argument in Powerex Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 12:43 am
iStock_000000100546_L2.jpg In a supervised release revocation hearing, the Third Circuit notes a circuit split regarding the admission of hearsay evidence without a showing of cause for the declarant's absence at the revocation hearing; Third circuit agrees with other circuits that hearsay is not per se admissible in a revocation proceeding and that, under due process standards, "a releasee may have a legitimate interest in confrontation and cross-examination… [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 10:55 am
Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 9:59 pm
HHS and Gill v. [read post]
9 May 2018, 4:09 pm
In March, in United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 12:18 pm
Resources Code, § 21050 et seq.) to a state agency’s proprietary acts with respect to a state-owned and funded rail line or is CEQA not preempted in such circumstances under the market participant doctrine (see Town of Atherton v. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 8:10 am
Failing to appear as a witness when subpoenaed is punishable as criminal contempt State v. [read post]
1 Sep 2013, 10:04 am
See also Georgia State Bar Rules, DR 7-102(A)(3), (4) and (5); DR 7-106(C) (1); Rule 4-102(d) Standard 45 and O.C.G.A. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 7:30 am
Indeed, in Meyer v. [read post]
20 Dec 2022, 5:36 pm
(Basu v. [read post]
16 Sep 2018, 1:41 am
Therefore if a mark lacks distinctive character in all Member States, the mark can only be registered if it has acquired distinctive character in the whole of the European Union (Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM, C‑98/11 P, EU:C:2012:307, [61] and [63]).It does not necessarily follow that distinctive character needs to be proven in each Member State. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 5:07 am
See United States v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 7:32 am
He mentions this case: State v. [read post]
1 Nov 2008, 10:31 pm
In the case of FCC v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 9:05 am
In Arabia v BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Arabia refinanced his home. [read post]
2 Feb 2022, 5:14 am
Bank National Association v Moss, 186 AD3d 1753, 1753 [2d Dept 2020]; State v Winkle, 179 AD3d 1121, 1126 [2d Dept 2020]). [read post]
