Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 1421 - 1440
of 4,554
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Nov 2010, 1:54 pm
A Double Standard for Online Speech [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 8:59 am
The court held that, under California law (see, e.g., County of Santa Clara v. [read post]
14 May 2012, 12:00 am
The Appeals Chamber's framing of issues highlights both the 200-meter attribution standard and the precise role it plays as a key -- but faulty -- piece holding the judgment together. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 7:29 pm
In Oliphant v. [read post]
18 Jan 2017, 11:32 am
In sum, no justice seemed willing to overrule Jordan v DeGeorge and its review of removal provisions under due-process vagueness standards. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 5:03 am
Even Doe v. [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 1:12 pm
After State v. [read post]
28 Dec 2022, 6:20 am
This brings us to a third case, Johnson v Kuma Kuma LLC, 2022 WL 17418977 (N.D. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 3:32 pm
Marquez v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 4:30 am
When a judge uses a non-standard phrase to explain a decision, it sends us into a tizzy. [read post]
21 Jun 2007, 11:10 am
Daum v. [read post]
22 Dec 2012, 11:24 am
Precision Automotive, 2012 U.S. [read post]
20 Nov 2009, 10:52 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Jun 2022, 12:57 pm
This standard was affirmed yet again four years later in June Medical Services LLC v. [read post]
9 May 2007, 5:25 pm
v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 3:18 am
in Green Tree Financial Corp-Ala. v Randolph (531 US 79 [2000]). [read post]
27 Aug 2019, 3:47 pm
Although the Court acknowledged that two other development proposals had been presented in the EIR, all were included as “possible development schemes, any of which could implement the development agreement and land use and development standards,” Id. at p. 11 [emphasis in original]. [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 2:01 am
However, in premises hazard cases, it is not necessary that the precise manner in which the injuries were sustained be foreseeable. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 7:06 pm
Under the standard set forth by the US Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors Inc v Pena (65 EPD ¶43,366 (1995)), to survive constitutional review, a government entity’s consideration of race has to meet strict scrutiny standards; thus, it must: (1) serve a compelling state interest; and (2) be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 2:13 pm
Ariel Katz argues that Parliament sought to codify a principle – a flexible standard, not precise rules. [read post]
