Search for: "State v. B. V."
Results 6261 - 6280
of 41,770
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Sep 2020, 12:54 am
The court considered a number of authorities in this regard, including X and Y v The Netherlands (App no 8978/80) and KU v Finland (App no 2872/02), in which the Strasbourg court had indicated that ECHR, art 8 placed a positive obligation on states to put in place effective deterrence measures against activities which may pose a threat to fundamental values and essential aspects of the private lives of individuals, particularly children and other vulnerable persons. [read post]
10 Jul 2008, 8:01 pm
") Applying United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 6:16 am
This is from the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and the case is styled, WEN WIRELESS, INC. d/b/a Cell Spot, Kick Back Wireless v. [read post]
23 Apr 2021, 6:01 am
Option 1.b: The individual plaintiffs have standing, but the states do not have standing. [read post]
14 Aug 2017, 9:20 am
Case citation: Bankers Life and Casualty Company v. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 6:28 am
Pratt, SP&V, LLC, and Timothy V. [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 2:09 pm
§ 924(e)(2)(B)(i), when the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance; whether, pursuant to United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2010, 9:27 am
§841(b)(1)(A)(iii) that carries a ten-year minimum sentence. [read post]
28 May 2007, 10:35 am
By Eric Goldman Facebook, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 6:43 am
By Eric Goldman Boring v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 12:00 am
KIRK v. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 5:19 pm
State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 60; Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 5:19 pm
State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 60; Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 9:39 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 11:19 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 2:29 am
Since the Court’s 1984 ruling in Strickland v Washington, the United States Supreme Court has applied a two part test for determining whether counsel was ineffective: (a) whether there was a breach of counsel’s duty to the defendant; and, (b) “but for” that error, the defendant stood a reasonable chance for acquittal. [read post]
20 May 2014, 4:39 am
Yesterday the Court issued its decision in the copyright case Petrella v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 9:00 am
See Thoma v. [read post]
15 Mar 2014, 8:31 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2009, 1:34 pm
He argues of human individuals that (a) they are resourceful and goal-motivated; (b) they are constrained and confronted with scarcity of time, energy, and resources; (c) they form expectations and learn; (d) they differentially value distinct states of the world; (e) they are motivated to achieve; (f) in novel situations, they search for the proper frame for the event in their reservoir of know event types. [read post]
