Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Mar 2019, 10:16 am
” Later, he said of the White House’s response to his requests, “They block us from everything. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 4:27 am
The first, Rucho v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 1:00 am
Public Health Laurie Beyranevand, Vermont Law School, Can Revised Standards of Identify Achieve Greater Public Health Outcomes? [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 2:56 pm
The People of the State of California v. [read post]
19 Mar 2019, 8:35 am
Common Cause and Lamone v. [read post]
18 Mar 2019, 6:12 pm
Given the precision of the standards, allowing anyone, whether expert or plaintiff, to testify based on observations unsupported by measurements is a dubious proposition. [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 12:04 pm
., LLC v. [read post]
7 Mar 2019, 12:29 pm
The ASA Statement came up occasionally in pre-trial depositions, but became a major brouhaha, when AbbVie moved to exclude plaintiffs’ causation expert witnesses.4 The Defense’s Anticipatory Parry of the ASA Statement As AbbVie described the situation: “Plaintiffs’ experts uniformly seek to abrogate the established methods and standards for determining … causal factors in favor of precisely the kind of subjective judgments that Daubert was designed… [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 7:27 am
” See Epenscheid v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 7:59 am
Holdings, Ltd. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 6:41 pm
In his report the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, presents guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of economic reforms, which set out the human rights principles and standards that apply to States, international financial institutions and creditors when designing, formulating or proposing… [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 3:18 am
., v. [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
The third case, EEOC v. [read post]
23 Feb 2019, 12:35 pm
It uses the open-ended standard, “market conditions as of the date of the appraisal”. [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 11:05 am
Department of Labor v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 9:01 pm
Let’s start with the complaint’s assertion that the US Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Fisher v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 10:47 am
Chris Hoofnagle, they chose opt-out to avoid the IMS v. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
”[71] Justice Arbour noted that, in explaining the standard to a jury, it might be preferable to re-word the standard of causation using positive terms, for example, a phrase such as a “‘significant contributing cause’ rather than using expressions phrased in the negative such as ‘not a trivial cause’ or ‘not insignificant’. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm
” This modified the old rules and constitutional application in which the jury or commissioners were judges of the law and the facts. 10 In re Public Highway in Elba Twp, 236 Mich 282, 284; 210 NW 297 (1926). 11 A precise discussion of the changes in the constitution appears in State Hwy Comm v Vanderkloot, 392 Mich 159, 169-176, 191; 220 NW2d 416 (1974). [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 9:20 am
It is hardly a precise standard, and it may often be hard to tell whether a forfeiture is "grossly disproportionate" or not. [read post]
