Search for: "Reed v. State" Results 1081 - 1100 of 2,137
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2016, 4:55 pm by Kevin LaCroix
John Reed Stark There have been several very high profile news reports of significant law firm data breaches. [read post]
17 Nov 2009, 2:03 am
The issue comes up because the petitioners in McDonald v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 1:30 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
ZM v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland); HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 12–14 January 2016. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 3:25 am
In Regeneron v Kymab (IPKat post here), a patent was found enabled and thus sufficiently disclosed despite the example methods provided in the specification being unworkable at the time of the invention. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 9:00 pm
 In a report we released last year, we outlined why the reasoning underlying these laws is constitutionally suspect: In Quill Corp. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 1:00 am by Aimee Denholm
R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (Nealon) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 8-9 May 2018. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 11:07 am
  Today we tee up the latest state appellate court win – David v. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 11:23 am
  And now Mississippi joins the growing number of courts that have said Class III medical device claims are preempted, regardless of whether the device was put to an off-label use.The case is Ledet v. [read post]
20 Oct 2021, 4:41 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
In relation to the tort gateway issue, Lord Lloyd-Jones (with whom Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, and Lord Burrows agree) gave the lead judgment. [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 9:05 pm by Elle Rothermich
Constitution’s equal protection guarantee to women in the landmark case Reed v. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 5 Dec 2017. [read post]
5 Dec 2019, 7:27 am by John Elwood
First up is Reed v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 1:50 pm
The US Department of Labor states that these delays happened as a result of a temporary halt in their operations in an attempt to comply with order of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in CATA v. [read post]