Search for: "State v. B. V."
Results 121 - 140
of 41,568
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jun 2024, 12:52 pm
She received a California County Counsels’ Litigation Award for preparing an amicus brief on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in Elisa B. v. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 9:56 am
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, finding the asserted patent claims were directed to an abstract idea and involved no inventive step. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 7:21 am
Regarding a reasonable expectation of privacy, a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 noted that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, location or circumstance if the person does not expect to be secretly recorded or observed. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 7:14 am
§ 1292(b). [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 5:50 am
In general, the best defences are: Legitimate Reasoning & No Undue Harm Section 163.1(6) of the Code states that if the material in question was produced for a legitimate reason related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education or art; and it does not pose an undue risk of harm to minors, then you cannot be convicted. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 4:05 am
Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton v. [read post]
6 Jun 2024, 3:24 am
Here: Briefs are here. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 4:05 pm
Clark B. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 9:40 am
Francis, asking if she believed women should have access to Plan B. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:11 am
§§ 30:2383.7.B, 2383.8.B. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:00 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 7:00 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
In McIntosh v. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 4:49 pm
First, following Curistan v Times Newspapers [2009] QB 231, qualified privilege operates so that the relevant privileged words are ignored for defamation purposes, at least as far as meaning is concerned, except insofar as they provide context for non-privileged words [56]. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 2:28 pm
In two cases, Godfrey Kikonygo v. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 9:30 am
(Young v. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 9:26 am
§§ 33-24-51(b) and 36-92-2 isn’t limited by the terms ‘actively in use’ ‘as a vehicle. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 5:51 am
Regarding question (b) and the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment under Article 192 of the Convention, the Tribunal found that this obligation “has a broad scope, encompassing any type of harm or threat to the marine environment” (op. para. 4(b)). [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 3:47 am
The case of R v ML, 2021 NBCA 27 also stated that the actus reus is made out where a “reasonable person aware of the circumstances would perceive the words as a threat of death or bodily harm”. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 2:21 am
Section 77(3)(b) creates liability for a director for damages sustained by the company if pursued by the company. [read post]