Search for: "White v. Does 1-21" Results 821 - 840 of 913
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Nov 2009, 12:46 pm by Steve Bainbridge
That trend was reversed following the Supreme Court’s decision in CTS Corp. v. [read post]
1 Nov 2009, 7:00 pm
A sports spectator assumes similar risks as does a sports participant. [35] Courts usually conclude that a “spectator has a duty to protect himself or herself not only against the dangers of which he or she has actual knowledge but also against such dangers incident to the game as would be apparent to a reasonable person in the exercise of due care. [read post]
21 Sep 2009, 7:35 am
”[3] Opponents argue that because the primary function of cheerleading is not competition, it does not meet the qualifications of a sport.[4] The answer to this debate depends on your definition of a sport.[5] The NCAA, the U.S. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 7:28 pm
The blood samples were tested and revealed that her white blood cell count was elevated, indicating an infection. [read post]
22 Aug 2009, 7:30 pm
Search for the August 21, 2009, decision in ACLU v. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 1:37 pm by Clare Freeman, RWS, WD Mich
July 21, 2009)—panel of Judges Moore, White, and Tarnow (E.D. [read post]
29 Jun 2009, 9:24 am
Only one of the Department’s 21 fire captains is African-American. [read post]
7 Jun 2009, 11:08 am by Scott J. Kreppein, Esq.
Recently, my attention was drawn to a 1998 Sotomayer decision from Nasrallah v. [read post]
23 May 2009, 3:43 am
"o April 1, 2009 decision hereo SCOTUS docket hereo SCOTUSwiki hereo Noted here: George LenardAT&T v. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 1:26 pm
In this White Paper, we provide an overview of current exposures facing companies involved in subprime-related businesses, as well as early trends in subprime-related securities litigation, from the vantage point of lawyers who are at the front lines of the current conflict. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 5:55 am
As the right to apply under s.85 was a personal, non-transmissible right, Art 1 Prot 1 was not engaged, as it does not create rights not given in domestic law. [read post]