Search for: "STATE v. SAMPLE" Results 1241 - 1260 of 4,543
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Apr 2021, 4:43 pm by Larry
Court of International Trade in the ongoing tussle known as United States v. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 12:14 am by INFORRM
The Court noted the similarities between the approach of the Court of Human Rights in the case of S v United Kingdom  and the present case, S involved the lawfulness of the police force retaining biometric data in the form of fingerprint and DNA samples. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 1:30 pm
Chicago, which considers whether the 2nd amendment should be incorporated to the states United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 11:07 am by Robert Wagner
The Court Finds the Composition Claims Are Patentable Subject Matter Before making its determination, the Court traced the state of the law regarding § 101 by looking at the Supreme Court’s decisions in Diamond v. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 6:14 am by Steven Cohen
Facts: This consumer class action litigation (Suchanek et al v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 4:04 pm by Christine Dowling
  For instance, when proving the chain of custody of a suspect's blood sample, would the state be forced to produce the specific nurse who drew the blood, as well as any other individual who signed off on the evidence along the way? [read post]
3 May 2011, 12:15 pm by John Elwood
United States, 10-8532, for Reynolds v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 7:22 am
Kriesel, supra(government's retention of the defendant's blood sample was `reasonable under the circumstances’ because the government needed the sample to ensure the accuracy of future DNA identifications).U.S. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2014, 6:55 am by Benjamin Bissell
On Friday, Zoe Bedell summarized the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights on extraditions to the United States: Trabelsi v. [read post]
26 Jun 2012, 6:45 am by Stephen Jenei
 Here’s a sampling of the reporting around the blogosphere on the convention: Julie M. [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 9:00 am by HRWatchdog
Governor Brown vetoed a similar measure last year and stated it “plainly violates federal law. [read post]