Search for: "State v. Harm" Results 61 - 80 of 25,693
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2024, 5:00 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
As stated by the tribunal in this case, “clear, convincing and cogent evidence is required to satisfy the balance of probabilities test”. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:00 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
As stated by the tribunal in this case, “clear, convincing and cogent evidence is required to satisfy the balance of probabilities test”. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
” Each of these theories of competitive harm is discussed in the 2023 Merger Guidelines. [read post]
6 May 2024, 7:33 am by Dan Farber
 Not every foreseeable potential harm should be considered a taking. [read post]
6 May 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
McCabe (concluding that the classification of marijuana was not rational); State v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 12:30 pm by John Ross
[Eagle-eyed readers might notice that the court cites Saunders v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:49 am by Eugene Volokh
The IHRA examples state that "Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to": Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. [read post]
3 May 2024, 8:38 am by Eric Goldman
Bungie has also provided evidence that the fraudulent notices harmed its reputation and caused it to devote significant resources to attempt to remediate the harm. 512(f) wins are so rare that each one is noteworthy. [read post]
3 May 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  Notwithstanding tobacco’s high death toll and damaging health effects, tobacco companies have survived hundreds of lawsuits challenging their promotion and distribution of a deadly drug, including Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 3:26 am by husovec
Here is how the explanatory note formulates the suspicion: “the Commission is assessing TikTok’s risk management related to its (i) potentially addictive design, (ii) the service’s risk of leading users down ‘rabbit holes’ of harmful content, and (iii) the effectiveness of TikTok’s measures for preventing minors from accessing inappropriate content, in particular age assurance tools. [read post]