Search for: "State v. Word"
Results 9761 - 9780
of 40,669
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2013, 3:23 pm
(commenting that provisions of Title 17 do not apply extraterritorially unless expressly so stated, hence the words “lawfully made under this title” in the “first sale” provision, 17 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 10:40 am
Its words hadn’t changed. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 2:42 pm
In other words, the user can view an image of the record in the client, but cannot download or save it for later viewing. [read post]
20 Dec 2012, 7:03 am
In other words, the release must be plainly worded and understandable to the average individual, and it must specifically refer to the rights and claims under the Wage Act that the employee is waiving. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 9:45 pm
Markle Interests, L.L.C. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2021, 2:53 pm
From State v. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 9:01 pm
Smith, in which the Court prohibited an after-the-fact referendum from interfering with a state’s (already finalized) ratification of a federal constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, which also uses the word “Legislature. [read post]
24 May 2019, 7:16 am
State ex rel. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 11:07 am
Juliana v. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 12:06 pm
" The subsequent turf wars over who paid for destitute asylum seekers arguably included such cases as Westminster CC v NASS [2002] 1 WLR 2956, [2002] UKHL 38, W v Croydon, A v Hackney [2007] 1 WLR 3168, [2007] EWCA Civ 266, R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O [2000] 1 WLR 2539, R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 836, and, of course, M v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) and R (Zarzour) v LB of Hillingdon [2009] EWCA Civ 1529. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 12:06 pm
" The subsequent turf wars over who paid for destitute asylum seekers arguably included such cases as Westminster CC v NASS [2002] 1 WLR 2956, [2002] UKHL 38, W v Croydon, A v Hackney [2007] 1 WLR 3168, [2007] EWCA Civ 266, R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O [2000] 1 WLR 2539, R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 836, and, of course, M v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) and R (Zarzour) v LB of Hillingdon [2009] EWCA Civ 1529. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 10:40 am
I've quoted from then-Chief Justice Moyer's dissent in State v. [read post]
27 May 2023, 11:05 am
A picture may be worth a thousand words but usually there are plenty of words to available to prove your point in this modern age. [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 5:59 am
The majority opinion in Bush v. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 9:01 pm
The 5-3 opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. [read post]
16 Sep 2013, 3:49 am
’ United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 10:29 am
In his view, TVA v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 10:43 am
Today the United States Supreme Court released its highly-anticipated decision in Elonis v. [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 9:52 pm
Prod., Inc. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:21 am
The tender documents contained a privilege clause worded as follows: “The lowest or any tender shall not necessarily be accepted”. [read post]
