Search for: "STATE V. POWERS"
Results 7701 - 7720
of 41,394
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Aug 2008, 10:50 pm
State v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 12:02 pm
For example, in United States v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 10:28 am
The language of “particularized need” comes from United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 1:27 am
Accordingly, the court decided that substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that Littles did not sustain an accidental injury arising out and in the course of her employment.In contrast, in Neacosia v New York Power Authority, 85 NY2d 471, the Court of Appeals decided that an employee who was injured after he stopped on his way home to leave his work uniform at a cleaning shop was acting within the scope of his employment and thus was eligible for workers'… [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
LLC v New York State Dept. of Health, 222 AD3d 1083, 1085 [3d Dept 2023]). [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
LLC v New York State Dept. of Health, 222 AD3d 1083, 1085 [3d Dept 2023]). [read post]
27 May 2014, 10:14 am
The decision in Plumhoff v. [read post]
24 Jun 2008, 7:29 pm
Yesterday in No. 07-330, Greenlaw v. [read post]
15 Sep 2018, 8:53 am
That was cited as authority in that case, Planned Parenthood v. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 8:05 am
Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
9 Oct 2024, 4:00 am
Likewise, it protects against Canfield’s concern that the state could use border search powers to conduct mass surveillance because officers cannot reasonably suspect everyone at a border crossing or arriving in Canada from a particular location.[8] The Court of Appeal deferred implementation of their decision for 6 months. ____________ [1] See R. v. [read post]
30 Aug 2022, 9:28 am
In the case, Orlando Bar Group, LLC d/b/a The Basement, The Attic and the Treehouse v. [read post]
30 Aug 2022, 9:28 am
In the case, Orlando Bar Group, LLC d/b/a The Basement, The Attic and the Treehouse v. [read post]
23 Oct 2019, 3:52 am
In short: no trade, no trademark.Two US Court of Appeals opinions have created the possibility that a plaintiff could bring a passing-off action based on use of its trademark outside of the United States only – a powerful new tool for challenging infringers that are first to use the trademark in the United StatesFollowing the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lexmark International, Inc v Static Control Components, Inc (572 US ___, 134 S Ct 1377 (2014)),… [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 9:08 am
Doe v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 8:13 am
The Court of Appeals disagrees.The case is Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach v. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 12:38 pm
And writes a short but powerful concurrence to make his feelings on this issue known. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 6:28 am
., v. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 4:23 pm
Marbury v. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 9:38 am
Supreme Court’s June 29, 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. [read post]
