Search for: "State v. True"
Results 9321 - 9340
of 21,897
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2019, 12:16 am
"Citing Pena v. [read post]
30 May 2019, 12:16 am
"Citing Pena v. [read post]
30 May 2019, 12:16 am
"Citing Pena v. [read post]
9 Nov 2022, 12:57 pm
From Corso Ventures, LLC v. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
In SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 4:22 pm
Jackson and United States v. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 10:48 am
Ohio or qualify as a “true threat” under Virginia v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 3:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2023, 4:26 pm
From Judge Pedro Delgado-Hernández's opinion today in Rodriguez-Cotto v. [read post]
28 Mar 2024, 12:05 pm
Against this backdrop, we should be granting Pennsylvania's petition for en banc review, supported by 17 other states and the District of Columbia as amici, or at least holding it c.a.v. pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 8:52 am
ISP Technologies, Inc., 259 F.3d 924, 929 (8th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added), but “[t]here is less need for the gatekeeper to keep the gate when the gatekeeper is keeping the gate only for himself,” United States v. [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 4:42 am
” Dionne v. [read post]
21 Feb 2025, 4:52 am
In any event, inherently incredible factual allegations are not entitled to be accepted as true (see Skillgames, LLC v Brody, 1 AD3d 247, 250 [1st Dept 2003]). [read post]
5 Nov 2018, 4:13 am
For The Washington Post, Gregory Schneider and Robert Barnes report that “[t]he legal dispute spins off into directions as unexpected as finding uranium on an old Virginia plantation”: “It pits a state’s right to regulate industry against the federal government’s power to oversee matters of national interest” and it “also hinges on trying to intuit the true motives of Virginia legislators more than 30 years ago when they enacted the… [read post]
20 Sep 2023, 5:29 am
In his opposition affidavit, David states that he has no recollection of receiving it, and Singer’s claim that the letter was mailed does not give rise to the presumption of receipt, as he does not present evidence of defendant firm’s office practices pertinent to mailing (see Lindsay v Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP, 129 AD3d 790, 793 [2d Dept 2015]; Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP v Brophy, 19 AD3d 161, 162 [1 st Dept… [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 3:00 am
’ Bain v. [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 1:11 pm
See also ROONEY V. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 5:01 am
In In re Hubbard (11th Cir. 2015), the Eleventh Circuit relied heavily on United States v. [read post]
22 Oct 2009, 4:33 am
In earlier decisions, the Appellate Division determined that plaintiff stated a cause of action in Judiciary Law 487. [read post]
2 May 2014, 5:31 pm
While TCRR rejects the argument that mere statutes simply don’t deserve the special standing of higher law reserved to formal Article V amendments, sadly, Shelby County shows that the rejected proposition is true. [read post]
