Search for: "GOOD v. STATE"
Results 121 - 140
of 49,971
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jun 2024, 1:51 am
If either of these offenses are committed with goods of special cultural importance to the State, the penalty is imprisonment for up to 3 years.[19] If the goods are of great or exceptional cultural importance, the penalty is up to 5 years imprisonment.[20] Article 219 of the Criminal Code punishes the removal or destruction of goods of special cultural importance with up to 5 years imprisonment. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 3:43 pm
” Vidal v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 3:35 pm
” Sotomayor pointed to the confusion lower courts have had applying the similar analysis Thomas offered in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 12:55 pm
United States and Kousisis v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 11:36 am
State v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 11:11 am
In Thomson v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 9:26 am
[1] See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 7:40 am
The medical associations respond that under Havens Realty Corp. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 4:30 am
The Court recently held oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2024, 2:37 am
Stachler v. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 2:07 pm
Be a good friend: Tips for effective amicus briefing. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 10:31 am
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 82 N.Y.2d 445, 626 N.E.2d 24, 605 N.Y.S.2d 208 (1993) 2 AFIA v. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 9:01 am
March 27, 2024) (refusing remand to state court) Mora v. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 8:17 am
Kennedy v. [read post]
12 Jun 2024, 6:39 am
It arises in a criminal case where the defendant was accused of making threats relating to his employment with the Post Office.The case is United States v. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 6:09 pm
In Nienaber v. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 3:31 am
Jackson Int’l Trading, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 246, at *6; Hornby v. [read post]
11 Jun 2024, 1:42 am
This analysis is consistent with recently published decisions by both the General Court and the Boards of Appeal on the topic, inter alia: mataharispaclub v EUIPO - Rouha (SpaClubMatahari), Gugler France v EUIPO - Gugler (GUGLER), R 1320/2022-4, CELESTINO, and R 470/2023-2, TOYA (fig.).Therefore, it is crucial for bad faith applicants to prioritise thorough, high-quality evidence collection for a successful case. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 11:16 am
[State v. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 9:39 am
Zesty Paws LLC v. [read post]
