Search for: "United States v. Taylor"
Results 761 - 780
of 1,564
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2016, 6:31 am
MCL 28.211a(b) defines `nonpublic information’ as `information to which access, use, or dissemination is restricted by a law or rule of this state or the United States. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 5:04 pm
Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413 (2000).Under the "unreasonable application" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.Unfortunately, an otherwise good Fourth Circuit opinion, Green v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 7:20 am
United States, 97 U.S. 237; Hopt v. [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 9:30 am
That 1872 ruling, in the case of United States v. [read post]
10 Dec 2018, 12:51 pm
Stitt and U.S. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 10:00 pm
See Sutton v. [read post]
10 Jun 2007, 6:56 am
United States, 60 M.J. 354 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (remanding to NMCCA with guidance about panel membership) (capital case) [Categories 2, 4]United States v. [read post]
31 Jan 2017, 5:34 am
And in Davis v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 6:51 am
Cir. 2002) (“Obtaining such a patent is a meaningful contact with the United States; it requires a patentee purposefully to avail him or herself of a significant benefit of United States law. [read post]
19 Jun 2016, 7:52 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 11:07 am
First, the approach taken in Canadian Solar stands in sharp contrast to the one taken by the United States Supreme Court in Morrison v. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 12:34 pm
United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2010, 7:09 am
As the recent opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Taylor v. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 5:02 am
He very kindly agreed, and passes along this: The criminal prosecution in United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
Courts in New York State have consistently recognized the importance of using progressive discipline.Rulings by the New York State Supreme Court, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, suggest an employer’s in assigning severe penalties for certain “first offenses” may not survive judicial review. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
Just one week before, however, we had discussed Rescuecom v Google (...), a case where the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit come to the opposite conclusion on the exact same facts. [read post]
6 Nov 2008, 12:05 pm
Legislative intent controls in applying personnel rules providing for the liquidation of sick leave accruals upon separation from serviceCounty of Broome v Badger, 2008 NY Slip Op 08230, decided on October 30, 2008, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentInitially the Broom County Legislature adopted a personnel rule setting out the payment that would be made to administrative employees [i.e., unrepresented personnel within the meaning of the Taylor Law] for unused sick time as… [read post]
27 Dec 2015, 11:28 pm
Ct. 2729, 2733 (2011) (citando a United States v. [read post]
10 Jun 2019, 10:22 am
Way back in 1990, the Supreme Court decided Taylor v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 4:37 pm
There is a need for more patent quality in SEPs" he stated. [read post]
