Search for: "State v. Hazard"
Results 1081 - 1100
of 3,329
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Nov 2022, 1:30 pm
The claimant alleged that the defendants were negligent in that the defendants failed to ensure that the pathway did not pose any potential hazard to members of the public, that the pathway was kept in a suitable state of repair and any uneven surfaces were suitably signposted with warning signs and any uneven surfaces on the pathway were timeously repaired. [read post]
28 Feb 2022, 9:21 am
Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in West Virginia v. [read post]
6 Jul 2018, 2:54 am
California state agency in charge of Prop 65 enforcement seeks to effectively reverse judge’s recent ruling and exempt naturally occurring acrylamide levels in coffee from need for warning [Cal Biz Lit] Prop 65 listing mechanism requires listing of substances designated by a strictly private organization, spot the problem with that [WLF brief in Monsanto Co. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 12:10 pm
Indeed, their brief in other places states their opinion that significance testing is not necessary at all: “Testing for significance, however, is often mistaken for a sine qua non of scientific inference. [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 1:43 pm
In the Carney v. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 11:08 am
Even after the Court’s twisted opinion in Supreme Beef v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:34 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 11:52 am
Cooper v. [read post]
28 Sep 2021, 2:53 am
See Jacobson v. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 6:25 am
There was no evidence that the placement of the bench next to a table in the bookstore was a trap or hidden hazard ... [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 6:31 am
The United States Department of Agriculture explains that Lock-Out Tag-Out is a safety standard requiring “… hazardous energy sources be ‘isolated and rendered inoperative’ before maintenance or servicing work can begin. [read post]
9 May 2017, 5:36 am
Forest Oil Corporation v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 5:36 am
Forest Oil Corporation v. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 7:14 pm
But recently the Court of Appeals in San Marco v. [read post]
14 Mar 2015, 4:30 pm
Brown v. [read post]
31 May 2023, 6:30 am
In Knox Couty v. [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 9:04 pm
It relied very heavily upon the 1920 precedent in Missouri v. [read post]
8 Feb 2007, 8:01 am
As stated above, the regulations explicitly state that area sources are exempt from Title V permitting requirements, unless otherwise required by law. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 12:37 am
” United States v. [read post]
