Search for: "State v. Word"
Results 8441 - 8460
of 40,667
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2012, 2:46 pm
Caldwell v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 9:43 am
***Engility Corp. v. [read post]
13 Dec 2019, 8:00 am
In other words, the number of states prohibiting executions has more than doubled in the last decade — a remarkable pace of change. [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 6:55 am
The recent case of United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 8:55 am
In other words, if social media sites are (superior?) [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 12:05 pm
The Court created the state-of-mind problem in Begay v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 1:49 pm
In what might be a surprising decision in any other Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in Barnes v. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 8:44 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jan 2007, 7:39 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 6:26 am
State v. [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 6:01 am
Summary of Argument: State your position succinctly in 250 words or less. [read post]
16 Jun 2021, 3:41 am
FocusVision Worldwide, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Sep 2019, 2:55 am
Heasley).The TTAB has (almost always) followed the principle laid down by the CAFC in Herbko v. [read post]
9 Oct 2016, 6:48 pm
This post applies this discipline to the legal practice of statutory interpretation.Lately, there has been a fledgling movement within the legal profession to use corpus linguistics as a tool to interpret words within the context of their use; to interpret the words of a statute. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 3:30 am
See, e.g., Morey v. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 3:44 am
In other words, were applicant's arguments likely to be sustainable? [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 7:20 am
One of my Google Scholar alerts is "intitle:insurance" in Google Scholar's New York state and federal case databases. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 4:44 am
” She remembered words such as “tiny,” “fuck,” and “cunt,” in conjunction with acronyms like “5yoa” and “8yoa. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 9:30 am
by suggesting that it would have led the Supreme Court in 1954 not to its Brown v. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 11:34 pm
But, while the word ‘shall' is often mandatory, particularly when used in legislation, it has, depending on the context, been interpreted on occasion as directory or exhortatory only: see for example R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354. [read post]
