Search for: "Ross v. Day" Results 601 - 620 of 875
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Sep 2022, 6:08 pm by Anthony Zaller
  This is also consistent with the California Supreme Court’s holding in Ross v. [read post]
30 Jun 2017, 8:04 am
Appellant admitted that he had smoked marijuana earlier that day, and at that point, was given his Miranda warnings. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:59 am by Edith Roberts
At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel discusses the court’s decision to review Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 8:38 am by Lorene Park
” On the other hand, a court in a different case denied summary judgment to an employer that failed to show it reasonably accommodated a Seventh-day Adventist employee’s request not to work the Sabbath (Kilpatrick v Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, MDAla 2012). [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 10:24 am by Arthur F. Coon
City of Irvine (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1110 (“Royalty”) and Friends of Riverside’s Hills v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 7:48 am by Rahul Bhagnari, ACLU
Committees; retaliation prohibitedReports: GAO conducts annual FISA compliance reviews Lynch (3) H.R.2684: Telephone Surveillance Accountability Act of 2013 Searches of Telephony Metadata: Requires judge to issue order to FBI Dir. finding "reasonable, articulable suspicion that the basis of the search is material and specifically relevant to an authorized investigation and enters an order authorizing such search" before searches through collected metadata may be conducted DISCLOSURE -… [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 1:02 am by INFORRM
On the same day Collins Rice J will hand down judgment in the cases of Zia Chishti v The Telegraph Media Group and McGee v Lewis. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 3:53 pm by Mark Walsh
He cites “a justice who served as an Arizona state legislator” and quotes from Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion in Davis v. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 5:15 am by Edith Roberts
” In his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel discusses McLane v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 5:20 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Antitrust is generally designed to protect consumers, while Lanham Act is also designed to protect competitors—antitrust is happy if someone sues, but Lanham Act specifically protects competitors who should get to sue.Mary Massaron Ross - Immediate Past President of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar, representing amicus curiae, DRIDRI has 22,000 members, representing businesses/individuals in civil litigation. [read post]