Search for: "Levell v. State"
Results 7821 - 7840
of 29,839
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Apr 2019, 12:17 pm
The officer tested plaintiff’s breath-alcohol level at that point, which registered at 0.2-0.03, less than the 0.08 required to prove impairment. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 8:41 am
In any event the White Paper leaves the strong impression that the legislation would eschew even that level of specificity and build the regulatory structure simply on the concept of ‘harmful’. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 3:00 am
Supreme Court case, TSC Industries, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 2:22 am
Parties’ submissions Firstly, Mr Robinson submitted that the line of authority beginning with Onibiyo [1996] EWCA Civ 1338 – which established that it was for the Secretary of State to decide whether further submissions constituted a fresh claim giving rise to a right of appeal – did not survive the Supreme Court’s decision in BA (Nigeria) [2009] UKSC 7. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 9:13 pm
Still, most drug trafficking cases will be charged at the state level unless: A large trafficking operation is investigated and uncovered by federal drug agents. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 5:27 pm
Paraphrasing the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 9:18 am
Prior to opening statements in United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 7:41 am
https://casetext.com/case/evergreen-v-charlotte-cty-bd Further, the circuit court may not enter injunctions or damages. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 6:56 am
United States sounds a bit like the previous burglary case, United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 6:11 am
There is “breakdown-level anxiety” in the White House. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 5:19 pm
Swart Enterprises Inc. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 3:12 pm
" Provident Bank v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 3:12 pm
" Provident Bank v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 12:22 pm
In the 2012 case of United States v. [read post]
16 Apr 2019, 11:05 am
” In an earlier decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Watts v. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
The red sole is valid and infringed, says the Court of The HagueChristian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV C/09/450182 / HA ZA 13-999, Court of The Hague (February 2019)For the first time Retromark strays beyond its UK/EU-level remit, in order to see the legendary red sole saga through to its conclusion in the Dutch courts. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 9:01 pm
This should lead to a lower level of scrutiny than that faced in Tam v. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 7:40 pm
Laying, not just a trial-level bankruptcy court opinion. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 7:17 pm
Today was Day One of the Apple, Foxconn et al. v. [read post]
