Search for: "THE STATE v. ANDREW SMITH" Results 81 - 100 of 470
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2021, 2:50 am by INFORRM
… Thus, as Andrew Clapham observes, the European Convention on Human Rights replaced the idea of protecting the individual against State measures with the idea of protecting the individual through State measures. [read post]
16 May 2022, 12:47 pm by Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
  HCC alleges that numerous tests indicated that none of the lettuce supplied by Andrew Smith was contaminated with E. coli, and that Andrew Smith did not cooperate with HCC’s investigation. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
 Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:No person [1] shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, [2] who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to… [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 12:38 pm by Steve Hall
Supreme Court's ruling in Maples v. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 2:00 pm
Edited by Andrew LongstrethEdited by Andrew Longstreth SECURITIES Lamb Again? [read post]
8 May 2012, 10:02 pm by WOLFGANG DEMINO
” Pleasant Glade Assembly of God, 264 S.W.3d at 6; Andrews v. [read post]
2 Jul 2010, 3:26 pm by Erin Miller
  And Fisher notes that Stevens hinted this Term in his United States v. [read post]
6 Dec 2024, 6:30 am
Posted by Forum Editors, (Harvard Law School), on Tuesday, December 3, 2024 Tags: Big Three, BlackRock, State Street, Texas California Climate Disclosure Laws: Recent Developments Posted by Eric T. [read post]
6 Dec 2024, 6:30 am
Posted by Forum Editors, (Harvard Law School), on Tuesday, December 3, 2024 Tags: Big Three, BlackRock, State Street, Texas California Climate Disclosure Laws: Recent Developments Posted by Eric T. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 2:46 am
 At first instance,covered by the IPKat here, Peter Smith J (English judges usually only get a surname – unless there is another judge around with the same one, like, in this case, Sir Andrew Smith) dismissed almost all of Mattel’s claims: there was no infringement of Mattel's two SCRABBLE marks (and no passing off) by the use of SCRAMBLE or SCRAMBLE WITH FRIENDS. [read post]
5 Aug 2015, 1:00 pm by Jon Sands
  The opinion suggests that the state all but conceded that this was the proper outcome of the case under Carey v. [read post]