Search for: "State v. B. V." Results 9421 - 9440 of 41,779
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jul 2019, 7:49 am by Ben Allen
  Citing language from the obstruction of justice provision, USSG § 2J1.2, dicta in its prior decision in United States v. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 6:29 am by Peter Margulies
As the Supreme Court noted in a case cited by Tigar, Rosenberg v. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 4:19 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Allegations of deceit or an intent to deceive must be stated with particularity (CPLR § 3016 [b]; Facebookv DLA Piper LLP (US), 134 AD3d 610, 615 [1st Dept 2015]). [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 6:12 pm by Ben Allen
§ 924(e)(2)(B)(i).Judge Stranch wrote separately to state that the Supreme Court in Voisine left open the possibility for "divergent" readings of the use of force requirement. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 9:28 am
In The Patissier LLP v Aalst Chocolate Pte Ltd [2019] SGIPOS 10, the Applicant (The Patissier LLP) sought to revoke the mark(“Subject Mark”) registered in the name Aalst Chocolate Pte Ltd, on the ground of non-use under S 22(1)(a) and (b) of Singapore’s Trade Marks Act (“TMA”). [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 2:55 pm by Mark Murakami
     (b)  It is further declared to be the purpose of this chapter and the policy of the State that all emergency management functions of this State and its counties be coordinated to the maximum extent with the comparable functions of the federal government, including its various departments, and agencies of other states and localities, and with private-sector and nonprofit organizations, to the end that the most effective preparation and… [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 2:55 pm by Mark Murakami
     (b)  It is further declared to be the purpose of this chapter and the policy of the State that all emergency management functions of this State and its counties be coordinated to the maximum extent with the comparable functions of the federal government, including its various departments, and agencies of other states and localities, and with private-sector and nonprofit organizations, to the end that the most effective preparation and… [read post]
That the voters explicitly imposed a procedural two-thirds vote requirement on themselves in [Article 13 C, Section 2(d)] is evidence that they did not implicitly impose a procedural timing requirement in subdivision (b).8 The court called this quote “ambiguous dictum” at best, and stated “this language appears to imply that the voters imposed the two-thirds voting requirement on themselves only with respect to taxes placed on the ballot by local government (e.g.,… [read post]