Search for: "Sweet v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 907
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Nov 2013, 1:40 pm
And while you ponder sugar plums, mulled cider, and crackling fires, we’ll update you on a recent federal decision that refused to recognize an expansion of state products liability law – Baird v. [read post]
4 Jul 2008, 9:54 am
strikes and you're out - well, we told you so" campaign (see next) and the anti-child porn brigade, it has to be said that the ECD immunities of Art 13-15 - including the requirement that the state not ask ISPs or hosts to proactively monitor or filter in Art 15 - look increasingly like dead ducks.Things look to be going the same way in the US as well, with both the CDA s 230c immunity under fire in the US Tiffany litigation, and DMCA immunity attacked in the ongoing Viacom… [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 1:06 pm
For Jayda’s lawsuit, check out Horizon Group Management, LLC v. [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 4:15 am
Article 10: The right to receive information Mr Sugar argued that he had the right to disclosure of the Report under Article 10 ECHR which he said recent Strasbourg case law made clear recognised a right of access to information (referring specifically to Matky v Czech Republic, Tarsasag v Hungary and Kenedi v Hungary). [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 8:54 am
–State v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 11:52 am
In The Aransas Project v. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 6:22 am
The court's press release states that there was no likelihood of confusion between both parties trade marks. [read post]
26 Oct 2006, 6:49 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 3:01 pm
Case Citation: Sweet v. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 3:42 pm
EBONY SWEETING V. [read post]
4 Feb 2020, 5:30 am
It is not a big surprise that Ortiz v Joel J. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 11:44 am
Here is the opinion in Sweet v. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 6:31 am
State v. [read post]
19 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
In its April 1, 2015 decision in Pittman v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 5:00 am
Bauman v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 4:43 am
Frosty Treats Inc. v. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 10:21 am
The reasoning behind why this is so was explained in characteristically lucid terms by Laddie J in Haberman v Jackel [1999] FSR 683 at 699 to 701.128. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 4:05 am
Participating States must also comply with various other requirements, including those that protect against waste, fraud, and abuse; those that protect the health and safety, and the privacy, of Medicaid beneficiaries; those that ensure that the States adequately accomplish the goals of the program (see the recent decision in Douglas v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 10:21 am
On March 10, 2010, the KSC heard arguments in State of Kansas (Appellee) v. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 11:37 am
The decision in Anderson v. [read post]
