Search for: "Holding v. State"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 69,976
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2015, 8:13 am
This ruling comes on the heels of the District of Columbia Circuit’s holding that state anti-SLAPP laws can’t be invoked in federal court. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 9:51 am
On June 24, in Fisher v. [read post]
Mitchell v. Wisconsin – Supreme Court Analyzes Exigency in the Context of an Unconscious DWI Suspect
5 Jul 2019, 3:43 pm
Wisconsin in Light of State v. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 2:48 pm
United States v. [read post]
24 Jul 2015, 10:23 am
In the recent case of Morrow v. [read post]
13 Nov 2015, 10:23 am
In the recent case of Morrow v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 10:16 am
CLS Bank (2014) and Mayo v. [read post]
11 Apr 2008, 6:00 am
Massie v. [read post]
16 Apr 2017, 3:13 pm
The rule in Cherry v. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 5:08 am
(Atsco Footwear Holdings, LLC v KBG, LLC, 193 AD3d 493, 494-495 [1st Dept 2021]; An-Jung v Rower, LLC 173 AD3d 488,488 [1st Dept 2019] [holding breach of contract claims should be dismissed in light of defendants’ account stated defense where retainer required objections to be raised within 30 days of receipt of the invoice, plaintiff timely paid the invoices, and did not object to any of them until two months after she received the last one].) [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 7:03 am
RT (Zimbabwe) and others (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38 - read judgment It is no answer to a refugee claim to say that the individual concerned should avoid persecution by lying and feigning loyalty to a regime which he does not support. [read post]
24 Jun 2016, 11:53 am
On June 10, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 4:01 pm
Then in its 2012 Miller v. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 6:29 am
On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 4:25 am
Cuellar was driving a Volkswagen Beetle south on State Highway 77 in Texas, approximately 100 miles from the Mexican border. [read post]
17 Mar 2007, 1:10 am
Therefore, the trial court erred in allowing the State to ask petitioner "were-they-lying" questions. [read post]
7 Feb 2017, 4:58 pm
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted that motion, holding that plaintiffs had not alleged falsity or materiality. [read post]
9 May 2018, 2:49 pm
MMM Holdings, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 6:20 pm
Biogen IDEC, decided just a month after Merck in the District of Maryland, the district court interpreted Merck's holding in the broadest possible manner, dismissing Classen's claims against Biogen IDEC ("Biogen") and GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") when the defendants successfully argued that their allegedly infringing acts of research tool use fell within the safe harbor provision of 271(e)(1) as construed in Lilly and Merck. n89footnote 89 states: Classen… [read post]
15 Mar 2024, 12:15 am
That post mentioned the Court of Appeal's holding in Lee v. [read post]
