Search for: "State v. Field" Results 9081 - 9100 of 11,496
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2023, 2:05 pm by Babak Yousefzadeh and Skyler Hicks
Namely, after numerous states passed laws to permit student-athletes to seek compensation in exchange for use of their name, image and likeness, the Supreme Court’s decision in NCAA v. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 9:35 am by Rob Merges
The early software cases, such as Gottschalk v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 7:02 pm by Science/Engineering
The role of public health programs and professionals in the highway safety field was discussed in detail, and participants were urged to include this valuable partner in strategic highway safety planning efforts. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 1:35 pm by SHG
Specifically, in appointing the Special Master, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered a review of the legal standard for the admissibility of eyewitness testimony known as the “Manson test,” established by the United States Supreme Court in 1977 and fully embraced by 48 out of 50 states, including New Jersey in 1988 in State v. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 4:48 am by charonqc
R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2010] UKSC 29 JUDGMENT The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on the jurisdiction issue (Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr dissenting) and unanimously dismissed the appeal on the inquest issue. [read post]
1 Aug 2022, 4:58 am by Emma Snell
“There should be a clear legal recognition of Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism,” Zelenskyy said. [read post]
5 Dec 2021, 4:39 pm by INFORRM
IPSO 07567-21 Ranger v Daily Mail, 1 Accuracy (201), No breach – after investigation 07566-21 Ranger v Telegraph.co.uk, 1 Accuracy (2019), No breach – after investigation 06518-21 Extinction Rebellion v The Daily Telegraph, 1 Accuracy, No breach – after investigation 06401-21 League Against Cruel Sports v The Sunday Telegraph, 1 Accuracy (2019), No breach – after investigation 05940-21 Cygnet Health Care Ltd and Dr Tony Romero v… [read post]
10 Nov 2024, 2:07 pm by Mayela Celis
However, it is possible to extend its application to other fields in which the parties involved expressly agree (article 1). [read post]
25 Apr 2008, 10:00 am
" [24] The state expressly states that such a user may not have not have protection within the laws of Michigan, unless there is a state or federal statute that expressly requires a manufacturer to warn. [25] Other states have also chosen to adopt the doctrine. [read post]