Search for: "Law v. Cross"
Results 921 - 940
of 15,223
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jan 2017, 6:06 am
In Jackson v. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 1:10 pm
In the case of the day, AO Techsnabexport v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 4:00 am
Alexander, et al v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 12:21 pm
Category: Recent Decisions;Tort Law Opinions;Probate Law Opinions Body: AC36164 - Tyler v. [read post]
23 Aug 2009, 8:39 am
Washington (541 U.S. 36 [2004]), overruled its prior holding in Ohio v Roberts ( 41 U.S. 36 [2004]) that reliability of hearsay evidence is the test for admissibility, and held that "Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination…. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 4:43 am
Here are the materials in State v. [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 9:55 pm
Fortunately, in Entergy Corp. v. [read post]
22 May 2019, 7:47 am
That isn’t the law. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 8:44 am
Since we affirm the district court’s rulings on the state law claims, we need not resolve the federal law cross appeal. [read post]
18 Jan 2023, 6:31 am
Lawyers had long believed that zealously representing one’s (private) clients was essential to fulfilling the rule of law. [read post]
1 May 2022, 8:54 am
The court says FOSTA requires at least knowledge, so violations won’t violate the law “unwittingly. [read post]
10 Jan 2025, 3:48 pm
In Becerra v. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 6:00 am
WELLMARK, INC. d/b/a WELLMARK BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF IOWA, and WELLMARK HEALTH PLAN OF IOWA, INC. [read post]
28 Mar 2020, 3:22 am
In Doe v. [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 9:03 am
Federal Law Preserves State Negligence Claims Ultimately, in Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 7:00 am
U.S. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 2:53 pm
The court of appeals, citing United States v. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 4:23 am
With respect to the biofuel cause of action, defendant met his initial burden on the cross motion by establishing that plaintiff’s allegations of damages are entirely speculative (see Lincoln Trust v Spaziano, 118 AD3d 1399, 1401 [4th Dept 2014]; Bua v Purcell & Ingrao, P.C., 99 AD3d 843, 848 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 857 [2013]), and thus plaintiff is “unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of [his] legal malpractice… [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 8:34 pm
And it ensures that government officials have actual limits to their discretion and that when those limits are crossed, redress is possible. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 5:17 am
Ward LJ (with whom Laws and Moore-Bick LJJ agreed) began by considering the newspaper’s cross-appeal, which argued that the judge had been wrong to conclude that the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the sexual relationship. [read post]
