Search for: "Cross v. State" Results 8961 - 8980 of 16,710
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2016, 4:00 am by Barry Sookman
Twitter suspends 125,000 accounts for promoting terrorism, most related to ISIS https://t.co/m5wgw48ZIs -> Courthouse News Service https://t.co/nnTKwyFM2B -> Copyhype Friday’s Endnotes – 02/05/16 https://t.co/qrH06Ow55w -> Case Law, Strasbourg: Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 6:46 pm by Maxwell Kennerly
For example, on October 6, 2009, in Animal Cruelty and Free Speech, the editorial page advised the Court to affirm in United States v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 5:32 pm by INFORRM
Michael appealed “the partial denial of his motion, and Pamela cross-appeals the dismissal of her harmful access by computer claim”. [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 2:11 am by Peter Mahler
One tailored to the particular case must be found, and that can be done only after a discriminating consideration of all information bearing upon an enlightened prediction of the future’ ” (Amodio v Amodio, 70 NY2d 5, 7, quoting Snyder’s Estate v United States, 285 F2d 857, 861). [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 9:43 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah, heard 7 May 2019. [read post]
10 Jun 2018, 4:23 pm by Giles Peaker
In O’Rourke v Camden LBC (1998) AC 188, the H [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Edith Roberts
The justices also issued one opinion yesterday: In United States v. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 6:45 am by Charles Kotuby
As noted in an earlier post on this site, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Cassirer v. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 11:56 am by Karen Gullo
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the border search case U.S. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2017, 8:08 pm by Mark Summerfield
  In its 2014 decision Nautilus, Inc. v Biosig Instruments, Inc, the US Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that ‘a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims … fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention’. [read post]