Search for: "State v. B. V."
Results 6761 - 6780
of 41,773
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2020, 1:16 pm
Under Section 1752(c)(1)(B), the NCD’s role is limited to the ability to “offer advice and consultation” to, well, everyone in the federal government with equities relating to cybersecurity. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 8:58 am
EIS, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 1:00 am
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton) v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL, heard 7 Mar 2017 Arcadia Petroleum Ltd & Ors v Bosworth & Anor, heard 10-11 Apr 2017 In the matter of an application by Anthony McIntyre for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), heard 24 October 2019 ABC (AP) v Principal Reporter & Anor (Scotland), heard 13- 14 November 2019 In the matter of XY (AP) (Scotland), heard 13- 14 November 2019… [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 12:39 am
(b) Where the original intention is not immediately apparent, the requester bears the burden of proof, which must be a heavy one (J 8/80, loc.cit., Reasons No. 6). [read post]
6 Dec 2020, 4:50 pm
See United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2020, 8:15 am
B(C), at 727 (2009). [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 5:19 pm
Haile held it wasn't a state constitutional mandate, citing Powers v. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 1:07 pm
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (Chamber of Commerce of the United State of America v. [read post]
4 Dec 2020, 3:21 am
" TMEP § 807.14(b). [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 2:44 pm
The court found the restriction was not in violation of Packingham v. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 8:10 am
Evidence that the defendant was the perpetrator of a different breaking and entering on the same day as the break-in at issue was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) State v. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 6:44 am
R.S. 47:287.93(B)(2), based on its regulation, La. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 4:29 am
§41713(b)(1). [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of Kaufman v Anker, 42 NY2d 835, the Appellate Division opined that "[b]ased upon the record presented, the [ACS'] determination that [Plaintiff] fell short of completing the probationary period was rational and not arbitrary or capricious or contrary to law. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of Kaufman v Anker, 42 NY2d 835, the Appellate Division opined that "[b]ased upon the record presented, the [ACS'] determination that [Plaintiff] fell short of completing the probationary period was rational and not arbitrary or capricious or contrary to law. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 3:00 am
B. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 2:50 pm
And prior to Teague, in DeStefano v. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 2:37 pm
Simon and Alexander v. [read post]
2 Dec 2020, 11:07 am
§§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(i). [read post]
