Search for: "*washington v. State of Fla" Results 121 - 140 of 320
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Sep 2016, 2:42 pm by Larry Tolchinsky
JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So.3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Rigby v. [read post]
18 Jul 2016, 7:28 am by Eugene Volokh
The ALLOW Act would require officials to scrutinize and justify the district’s occupational regulations in accordance with the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in NC State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
28 Jun 2016, 8:47 am by Lyle Denniston
  The challenge was to regulations enforced on pharmacists by the state of Washington. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 9:05 am by Amy Howe
”  Molly also rounded up early coverage and commentary on yesterday’s four-four tie in United States v. [read post]
6 May 2016, 12:30 pm
  For other Texas (and other states’) cases applying the learned intermediary rule to prescription medical devices, see our post here.Collectively, strike one.Second, Texas’ rejection of design defect claims involving prescription medical products is also reflected in that state’s product liability statute. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 4:51 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Further, state law could allow a corporation to indemnify a director or officer. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 7:19 am by D. Daxton White
Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington brought a parallel criminal action against Nelson and others. [read post]
13 Feb 2016, 4:25 pm by Jeff Gamso
Heller in which he wrote the majority opinion and Citizens United v. [read post]
12 Feb 2016, 12:05 pm by Kevin
State, 86 So. 3d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (flimsy hollow plastic broomstick not a “deadly weapon”); Lee v. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 5:12 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  THE LAW IN NEW JERSEY   We should expect a high court ruling in New Jersey very soon as the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey just heard oral argument on October 14, 2015 in Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 9:09 pm by Lyle Denniston
The state also insisted that Hurst’s lawyers had exaggerated what is required under Ring v. [read post]