Search for: "State v. C. S. S. B."
Results 6381 - 6400
of 15,316
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Oct 2016, 11:33 am
As for good moral conduct, Ragoonanan v. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 10:01 pm
Reasonable suspicion of drug consumption in the preceding three hours of operating a motor vehicle The Criminal Code of Canada provides that where a police officer has “reasonable grounds to suspect” a person has alcohol or drugs in their body, and has operated a motor vehicle within the previous three hours, they may make a demand for the suspect to a) provide a sample of breath (drinking), or b) participate in sobriety testing, or c) both. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 8:30 am
” The court thus distinguishes Walker v. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 6:49 am
Dimaya: Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing an alien’s removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 12:20 am
The conditions stated in section 27(1)(b) and 27(1)(c) still needed to be fulfilled. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 11:13 am
See State v. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 11:13 am
See State v. [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 8:39 am
Bauman, 134 S. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm
And he explained Tansey v Gill as a case in which the judge was fully satisfied that the defendant could have no defence to the proceedings, thereby fulfilling the terms section 33(1)(b). [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 9:12 am
Finally, the Ransom Court stated, “[C]onsideration of BAPCPA’s purpose strengthens our reading of the term ‘applicable. [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 8:27 am
In that case, the Supreme Court developed a new, three pronged test examining: “(a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law[,] and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,… [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 9:19 am
B. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 7:08 am
§1630.14(d)(6), which states that the safe harbor provisions “applicable to health insurance, life insurance, and other benefit plans do not apply to wellness programs, even if such plans are part of a covered entity’s health plan. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 12:28 pm
In Lickiss v. [read post]
20 Sep 2016, 8:57 am
By: Hans C. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 12:08 pm
State v. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 3:08 pm
State-of-the-art at the time was 78s. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 1:26 pm
§ 78j(b)) and Rule 10b-5(a), (b), and (c) (17 C.F.R. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 5:34 am
State v. [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 3:58 pm
In D.C. v. [read post]
