Search for: "I.S. V. STATE"
Results 81 - 100
of 17,478
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2024, 10:07 pm
United States, and Shoop v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 9:01 pm
Although secondary sanctions are sometimes phrased in mandatory terms (i.e., persons found to have engaged in targeted conduct “shall” be designated for the specified sanctions), in fact the making of such a finding requires further action by the Executive Branch and is in fact discretionary. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:05 pm
In 1989 in Michael H. v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
7 May 2024, 11:44 am
Seilkop v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:31 am
This is recognized in the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) at 9 FAM § 402.1-3 , which states that an “applicant desiring to come to the United States for one principal purpose, and one or more incidental purposes, must be classified in accordance with the principal purpose. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:00 am
As stated by the tribunal in this case, “clear, convincing and cogent evidence is required to satisfy the balance of probabilities test”. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:00 am
As stated by the tribunal in this case, “clear, convincing and cogent evidence is required to satisfy the balance of probabilities test”. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 4:00 am
No one was arguing in the Idaho case that EMTALA codifies Roe v. [read post]
5 May 2024, 10:26 am
The briefing cites to Naterra International, Inc. v. [read post]
5 May 2024, 9:44 am
Second, the court doesn’t address the forum analysis, i.e., whether the social media account is a designated public forum, a limited public forum, or not a public forum at all. [read post]
3 May 2024, 12:33 pm
See Louisiana Wetlands, LLC v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 6:38 am
The group walked us through inventorship determination examples for AI-assisted inventions based on factors borrowed from Pannu v. [read post]
3 May 2024, 3:26 am
It is significant that the charge seems mostly related to mitigation, i.e. failure to act against the risks, and not just to assess them. [read post]
2 May 2024, 6:25 pm
See page 107 of FDA’s 1st Quarter FY2024 MDUVA V Report (here). [read post]
2 May 2024, 2:27 pm
Is Delaware law as stated in MacRitchie consistent with Dodge v. [read post]
2 May 2024, 9:49 am
Stated that way, Section 230’s applicability is obvious. [read post]