Search for: "State v. Levell " Results 6161 - 6180 of 29,473
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2020, 7:26 am by Dennis Crouch
United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 6:21 pm by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
 Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s holding that the retroactivity of the Protz decision dates back to the date of the IRE in the context of a worker’s compensation matter.After reviewing the prior Pennsylvania caselaw on the retroactivity of new law under the circumstances presented in this matter, the Court held that, unless the appellate decision rendering the new law specifically states that it is to be applied prospectively, the new rule of… [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 4:42 pm by John Jascob
The court’s decision comes just days before the rule’s June 30 compliance date (XY Planning Network, LLC v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 2:41 am by Irene Marchioro (University of Bologna)
At supranational level, attention was especially drawn to the topic of the force majeure clause,2)For example, M. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 9:02 pm by Cary Coglianese
They possess a “unique responsibility” to pursue justice, as the Supreme Court stated in the 1987 case of Young v. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 2:22 pm by Giles Peaker
Just like any accommodation, it was stated that it was likely to be suitable for a single young man. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
The Supreme Court was also asked to address the provision of the act that provided for expanding Medicaid eligibility to 133% of poverty level and provided federal funding to states for this expansion. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 5:11 am by Andrew Delaney
Petitioner wanted SCOV to follow the lead of the Big Court in Martinez v. [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]