Search for: "GLASS v. STATE"
Results 881 - 900
of 1,817
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Oct 2014, 11:05 am
In Ash v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 8:14 am
Additional Resources:Cheeks v. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 4:45 am
” Alvi’s Drift Wine International v. von Stiehl Winery, Cancellation No. 92058100 (September 12, 2014) [not precedential]. [read post]
11 Oct 2014, 9:45 am
Cf. 4thcircuit’s AOL v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 6:00 am
In the case of Maeker v. [read post]
29 Sep 2014, 9:00 am
See Thoma v. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 1:27 pm
At that time, the People filed a supporting deposition signed by Officer KK, which identified the contraband seized as a glass pipe containing crack cocaine residue. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 7:40 am
The State of Connecticut passed a law that prevented insurance adjusters from telling broken auto glass customers where to repair their glass. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 3:11 am
" Another entry, entitled “boob wine stoppers," included the same photo as the first entry, and stated: "These are crazy boob party girl wine stoppers...they made me buy Naughty Girl wine. [read post]
20 Sep 2014, 11:07 am
Parker v. [read post]
16 Sep 2014, 1:17 pm
See Judgment in Apple Inc. v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, C-421/13, paragraph 17 [10 July 2014]. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm
But she met her glass ceiling when she, an unmarried woman, announced her pregnancy in 2013. [read post]
15 Sep 2014, 8:36 am
There the Court found assistance from Lord Walker in the House of Lords decision in Synthon v SmithKline Beecham. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 6:41 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 5:42 am
State v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 11:26 am
In United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 7:27 am
Here’s the introduction: In June 2014, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Riley v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 6:52 am
State v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 3:19 am
[v] The SEC Certainly the majority of the federal activity on cyber security issues has come from the SEC. [read post]
27 Aug 2014, 3:57 am
"Much depends on Dura’s credibility," the court said, stating it was possible a jury could see Dura’s explanation as a pretext, or find that the drug test had targeted information about employees' physical or mental health, regardless of Dura’s stated intent.But it was not a matter of law that Dura violated the ADA.The case is Bates et al. v. [read post]
