Search for: "States v. State"
Results 7961 - 7980
of 258,481
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2023, 9:00 am
Circuit, United States v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 7:55 am
You will find on the MLB website (3), the Yankees state that “Large and/or golf umbrellas are not permitted in the stadium. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 7:55 am
The plaintiffs in Held v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 7:23 am
Case date: 05 December 2023 Case number: No. 22-1006 Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 7:04 am
Dec. 13, 2023Ulis v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 6:11 am
It is styled, MacIntire v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 6:08 am
From Linthicum v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
The recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, Strata Solar LLC v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 5:00 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 4:25 am
In Nimkoff v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 4:22 am
The case is entitled Aziz et al. v. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 4:00 am
”As for the purported travel restrictions, the AD1 agreed that it was up to the State Department (not the courts) to remove any restrictions on his passport, so that the father could return to the United States.Apparently, his arguments didn’t travel well, either.# # #DECISIONVelin M. v Bermet T. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:25 am
Thus, the declarations were not subject to the general rule of grand jury secrecy because they were not “evidence actually presented to [the grand jury]” nor “anything that may tend to reveal what transpired before it” (see United States v Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 923 F2d 241, 244 [2d Cir 1991], citing Fed Rules Crim Pro rule 6[e][2]). [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:05 am
On 15 December 2023, as stated above, Fancourt J handed down judgement in favour of the claimants in the case of The Duke of Sussex and Ors v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3217 (Ch). [read post]
17 Dec 2023, 10:00 pm
” (It also didn’t help her case that this “serious incident” wasn’t properly reported.)Given that factual backdrop, the AD1 didn’t think the revocation was an inappropriate penalty and left the outcome undisturbed.Unfortunately, there's no revoking that.# # #DECISIONMatter of C.L. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs [read post]
17 Dec 2023, 5:56 pm
State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. [read post]
17 Dec 2023, 2:43 pm
Precedent from the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. [read post]
17 Dec 2023, 11:12 am
These stated variously a. [read post]
16 Dec 2023, 4:42 pm
BrazilGazeta do Povo v. [read post]
