Search for: "Head v State" Results 1121 - 1140 of 14,945
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Mar 2016, 7:44 am by Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner
The bus flipped and passenger suffocated to death when her head became trapped. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 6:22 pm
Matter of McGillicuddy’s Tap House, Ltd. v New York State Liquor Authority This Article 78 proceeding was brought about to review a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority finding petitioner McGillicuddy’s Tap House in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. [read post]
22 Mar 2022, 4:00 am by Catherine Morris
The recent findings of an international trial monitoring panel in the case of United States v. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 11:45 am
The tragic death of a young woman following a Florida car crash prompted her parents to file a lawsuit against the driver who struck her head-on after she was rear-ended while attempting to pass a semi-truck. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 9:11 am
The ILB has had a long list of entries on the 7th Circuit decision in the case of United States v. [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 12:10 pm by Schachtman
“Then time will tell just who fellAnd who’s been left behind”                   Dylan, “Most Likely You Go Your Way” (1966)   When the Daubert case headed to the Supreme Court, it had 22 amicus briefs in tow. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 7:09 am by Tyler Green
Green is solicitor general of the state of Utah, which joined a 13-state amicus brief supporting the petitioner in Seila Law v. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 9:29 am by Native American Rights Fund
.* State Courts Bulletin http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2014state.htmlCases featured: State v. [read post]
2 May 2011, 4:33 am by Joanne Zimolzak
The US Supreme Court heard oral argument in the AEP v. [read post]
14 Dec 2023, 2:30 pm by Bryan West
Browne v Dunn Rears Its Head Against this, the defendant’s case suffered from a tendency to attempt to produce inadmissible hearsay, and contravention of the ancient tripwire Browne v Dunn, a case from 1893 that requires litigants to put statements of fact to opposing witnesses in cross-examination if the litigant later intends to claim that the statement of fact contradicts the testimony of the opposing witness. [read post]