Search for: "State v. Sample"
Results 1301 - 1320
of 4,108
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2023, 9:01 pm
Products were intended for further treatment ahead of sale at JIP východočeská stores. [read post]
18 Oct 2006, 5:18 am
People v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 7:53 am
California and United States v. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 4:08 pm
Moreover, the state court (Arizona) had a reasonable basis to deny the claim.U.S. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 4:00 am
In another recent decision, Farmobile, LLC v. [read post]
11 May 2012, 1:32 pm
Finally, growers may also open up to 15 “salesrooms” throughout the state for sampling on the premises and for retail sale and consumption on and off the premises. [read post]
10 Feb 2023, 4:44 am
To be sure, there are gaps, inconsistencies, and mistakes, but the statistics chapter should be a must-read for federal (and state) judges. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 9:40 am
(Eugene Volokh) From the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations in Tsaganea v. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 11:36 am
The California Court of Appeal ruled in People v. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 9:06 pm
That question is being disputed during the pre-trial stage of the United States v. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 10:00 pm
(citing Spainhower v. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 1:45 am
In Ariosa v Sequenom, the patent claimed a method of detecting the presence of foetal DNA in a blood sample from a pregnant woman. [read post]
28 May 2013, 3:24 am
Here’s a sampling of three recent decisions — one from each of the Suffolk Commercial Division’s judges – involving notable shareholder disputes: Carvella v. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 4:23 pm
Schmitt v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
In New York v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 1:56 pm
For allegedly displaying certain outward indicia of intoxication and failing four out of five field sobriety tests, defendant was asked to give a breath sample. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 6:58 am
In a brief opinion piece at Cato@Liberty, John Samples discusses SpeechNow’s success despite the denial. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 5:30 am
In R (on the application of Naik) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2011] EWCA Civ 1546) the Court of Appeal confirmed that the exclusion of an Indian Muslim public speaker from the United Kingdom after making statements which breached the Home Office’s “unacceptable behaviours policy” was lawful, and that any interference with his rights was justified. [read post]
28 May 2015, 2:29 pm
Daubert v. [read post]
2 Apr 2018, 9:50 am
March 6, 2018) (putative collective and class action alleging defendant transportation company failed to pay non-emergency medical transportation drivers overtime in violation of state and federal wage and hour laws) Brumfield v. [read post]
