Search for: "State v. D. C." Results 601 - 620 of 14,523
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Nov 2023, 7:13 am by INFORRM
In fact, the European Court of Human Rights first used the term ‘SLAPP’ only as recently as 2022 in OOO Memo v Russia. [read post]
1 Nov 2023, 9:59 am by Kang Haggerty LLC
Philadelphia, PA (November 1, 2023): A jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Shin Da Enterprises, Inc., et al, v. [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 2:18 pm by David Kopel
[Only one federal firearms prohibitor does not require any specfic finding of fact] On November 7, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the only Second Amendment merits case this term, United States v. [read post]
31 Oct 2023, 6:26 am
       (c)  The responsible development and use of AI require a commitment to supporting American workers. [read post]
30 Oct 2023, 6:16 am by Jacob Wirz
[6] Brief of Amici Curiae State of West Virginia and 26 Other States in Support of Petitioners, Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
27 Oct 2023, 6:02 am by Bill Marler
 E. coli O157:H7 is one of thousands of serotypes Escherichia coli.[1] The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the E. coli O157:H7 refers to the specific antigens (proteins which provoke an antibody response) found on the body and tail or flagellum[2]respectively and distinguish it from other types of E. coli.[3] Most serotypes of E. coli are harmless and live as normal flora in the intestines of healthy humans and… [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 8:27 am by Amy Howe
” The Second Amendment returns to the Supreme Court Less than two years after their landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
25 Oct 2023, 7:17 pm by Michael Lowe
Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 770 F.2d 399, 407 (4th Cir. 1985) and United States v. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 12:10 pm by Mark St. Amour
The saga between Apple and Corephotonics continues in Corephotonics, Ltd. v. [read post]
22 Oct 2023, 9:24 am by Giles Peaker
That lends considerable weight to the Appellant’s argument that Articles 3(1) (c) and (d) were not satisfied – thereby rendering the property unsuitable. [read post]