Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 1261 - 1280
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jul 2019, 7:34 pm
In this case, the plaintiff could not claim he was unable to use t [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 6:29 am
As the Supreme Court noted in a case cited by Tigar, Rosenberg v. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 11:09 am
Contact us to see how. [read post]
24 Jul 2019, 6:00 am
In Booker v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 9:05 pm
There is no other precisely defined judicial review standard and judges recurrently decide some matters de novo although an agency has presented a reasonable construction of the statute. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 11:38 am
In Katz v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 2:46 am
“SupplyTime” was first published in 1975 and, now in its third revision, is one of BIMCO’s most widely used forms. [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 9:01 pm
There are no legal standards discernible in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral. [read post]
14 Jul 2019, 8:58 pm
More recently, Gregory Shill of the University of Iowa College of Law describes in The Atlantic how the law effectively compels the use of the automobile, repeating the 1977 SCOTUS reference in Wooley v. [read post]
13 Jul 2019, 8:53 am
It looks at the distance from the mean a value will fall, and is measured by using standard deviations. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:38 pm
The AG concluded that the EUIPO assessment failed to meet these standards in the present case. [read post]
9 Jul 2019, 2:00 am
According to Roberts, any standard for resolving partisan gerrymandering claims must be grounded in a “limited and precise rationale” and be “clear, manageable, and politically neutral,” and the approaches used by the lower courts failed to meet those criteria. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 2:25 pm
The standard that judges must employ in deciding whether to seal a defendant's criminal record under that statute was articulated in Commonwealth v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 12:39 pm
(OCA, para.8-9) The OCA relied on the 2014 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bhasin v. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 1:38 pm
There are no legal standards discernable in the Constitution for making such judgments, let alone limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 12:58 pm
The more challenging question is defining what, precisely, constitutes an unanticipated site condition. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:30 am
Connecticut or Roe v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 10:17 am
” Nothing in the Constitution provides standards to decide what is fair, much less the kind of “limited and precise standards that are clear, manageable, and politically neutral” that courts would need. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 5:29 pm
Co. v. [read post]
