Search for: "Hoffman v. State"
Results 681 - 700
of 971
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Oct 2008, 12:36 pm
Some states close the causation question at the "I would still prescribe" stage. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 11:39 am
Lord Hoffman has in fact stated that the legislative reforms have served to “free the Courts from technical considerations of legal right and to confer a wide power (to do what is fair)…” – O’Neill v. [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 3:00 am
Kirk v. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 11:42 pm
(With thanks to colleague David Hoffman for alerting me to this decision.) [read post]
26 Jan 2014, 6:25 am
About 700 million passengers a year in the United States are moved about by the 29,000 motorcoaches that transports them. [read post]
21 Oct 2008, 10:29 pm
Hoffman Child Rape, Moral Outrage, and the Death Penalty [pdf] Susan A. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 8:36 am
There the Court found assistance from Lord Walker in the House of Lords decision in Synthon v SmithKline Beecham. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 5:02 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, No. 13-5051 JSC, slip op. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 5:18 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 949 F.2d 806, 814 (5th Cir. 1992) (no presumption in unavoidably unsafe products because the effect of a presumption on an inherent risk would be to presume that nobody would ever use the product); Lineberger v. [read post]
14 May 2013, 8:05 am
Because there was no restrictions on the use of the Nespresso machines, Counsel for Dualit cited the much-quoted speech of Lord Hoffman in United Wire [2001] where he stated that "a person who has acquired the product with the consent of the patentee may use or dispose of it in any way he pleases…". [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 2:20 pm
Co. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 6:28 am
Kim, that under United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2021, 2:35 pm
State v. [read post]
7 Oct 2024, 8:00 am
Goldberg v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 2:41 am
Most recently in the Court’s 2004 decision in Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 5:00 am
California (1973) (obscenity) United States v. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 4:20 am
” “A “witness at a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding enjoys an absolute privilege with respect to his or her testimony,” as long as the statements made are material to the issues to be resolved therein (Pfeiffer v Hoffman, 251 AD2d 94, 95 [1998]; accord Martinson v Blau, 292 AD2d 234, 235 [2002]; see Youmans v Smith, 153 NY 214, 219 [1897]; Wilson v Erra, 94 AD3d 756, 756-757 [2012]). [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 2:25 pm
It was accepted that the decorations were in a poor, rather tatty state, although dreadful. [read post]
9 Aug 2024, 11:47 am
United States (1951) and Malloy v. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 8:14 am
The Tony Twist case, Doe v. [read post]
