Search for: "State v. Ryan" Results 681 - 700 of 2,675
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jun 2018, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
At Good Judgment, Ryan Adler assesses the crowd’s forecast in the case. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Malcolm Mercer
In concluding that deference was required in considering Law Society rules, Justice Wagner stated that “In the case at bar, the legislature specifically gave the Law Society a broad discretion to regulate the legal profession on the basis of a number of policy considerations related to the public interest. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 3:31 am by Edith Roberts
At Good Judgment, Ryan Adler notes that the outcome “was not a win” for forecasters. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 7:57 am by Daily Record Staff
Criminal procedure — Hearsay — Excited-utterance exception Following a five-day bench trial, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County convicted Ryan Salandy (“Appellant”) of second degree murder. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 6:56 am by Anthony Gaughan
Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Husted v. [read post]
15 Jun 2018, 6:12 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Tags: Executive Compensation, Long-Term value, Repurchases, SEC, Securities regulation, Shareholder value, Taxation Marking to Market Versus Taking to Market Posted by Guillaume Plantin (Sciences Po) and Jean Tirole (University of Toulouse & IAST) , on Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Tags: Accounting, Agency costs, Contracts, Fair values, Information… [read post]
15 Jun 2018, 4:30 am by Edith Roberts
At Good Judgment, Ryan Adler remarks that “this was not the crowd’s best day” for forecasting the result. [read post]
13 Jun 2018, 10:18 am by Victoria Clark
Eliot Kim summarized the latest Foreign Intelligence Sovereign Immunities Act case: Jam v. [read post]
7 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm by Bobby Chen
House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated, “I have concluded that this is a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense of Section 5000(A)(a)” but that the decision not to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate “will not prevent the court in Texas v. [read post]