Search for: "COOPER v. STATE"
Results 6661 - 6680
of 7,372
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Dec 2023, 4:17 pm
From Murry v. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 3:31 am
” That’s right; in addition to the State’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to you, you’ve now got a duty to disclose it to them. [read post]
27 Jul 2010, 5:43 am
In Ostergren v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
” If you get into issues with the SCA, it would behoove you to read Crispin v. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 7:31 am
It also argued that its termination of Tenpenny was justified because she did not cooperate with the investigation. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 12:03 pm
See, Floyd v. [read post]
10 Nov 2024, 9:05 pm
ENDNOTE SEC v. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 2:44 am
This legislation seems premature to me - a half-cocked, git-tuff response to a lingering social conflict between church and state. [read post]
1 Jul 2024, 11:05 am
Co. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2008, 5:42 pm
., Mitchell v. [read post]
6 Nov 2024, 6:29 am
While HOA covenants are legally binding agreements that often contain parking restrictions, this new legislation serves as an incentive for HOAs to proactively update their covenants to better align with the evolving needs of homeowners and avoid unnecessary disputes over pickup truck parking.Understanding the Legal LandscapeFlorida law generally presumes that new statutes apply prospectively, not retroactively, unless explicitly stated otherwise (State v. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 2:14 am
In particular the texts of the Trade Mark Directive and the Community Trade Mark Regulation should be rewritten to match what the Court of Justice said they actually meant in eg Case C-292/00 Davidoff v Gofkid [we've all got used to the law now, so it would be a shame to spoil things by changing it -- but hasn't the ECJ's ruling in Davidoff done quite a bit to clutter the register by extending trade mark protection way past that which the law explicitly provided?] [read post]
2 Mar 2014, 9:22 am
The case is styled, Northern County Mutual Insurance Co v. [read post]
10 Sep 2020, 6:00 pm
Meyers Arconti v. [read post]
25 May 2019, 7:19 am
In Reed v. [read post]
7 Apr 2021, 2:20 pm
Several categories of organizations are exempted, including state agencies and offices, nonprofits, and institutions of higher education, as well as any financial institution subject to the privacy rules of Title V of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act and entities subject to HIPAA. [read post]
18 Jan 2015, 2:42 pm
Reeves v. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 4:54 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. [read post]
10 Feb 2008, 10:58 am
In NRDC v. [read post]
17 Nov 2010, 7:07 am
But always, always, follow the rules. ___________ Booher v. [read post]
