Search for: "Hammers v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 862
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jul 2020, 5:00 am
Ames (1903) Hammer v. [read post]
19 Jul 2020, 5:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 2:51 pm
This is a well-known 1955 precedent about regulation of eyeglass prescriptions that permits state regulation based on any hypothetical rationale a state “might” have had in mind, even if there is no indication that the state ever thought about that policy and, instead, a lawyer for the state conjures it for the first time from whole cloth in litigation. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 Jun 2020, 9:20 am
Case citation: UMG Recordings v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 7:00 am
Several trade associations gave feedback, and raised five major concerns: The broad scope of the rule; The inability of many contractors to meet the August 2020 compliance deadline; (3) Whether the rule will apply outside the United States; Whether the term “use” would include a reseller’s commercial sales of prohibited products, thus preclu [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 6:01 am
Warley (1917), Hammer v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 6:00 am
Warley (1917), Hammer v. [read post]
22 May 2020, 12:29 pm
In State of Tennessee v Mimi Barrett , The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on Ms .Barrett’s appeal of her sentence. [read post]
22 May 2020, 12:29 pm
In State of Tennessee v Mimi Barrett , The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled on Ms .Barrett’s appeal of her sentence. [read post]
5 May 2020, 10:12 am
But while lots of people are quick to hammer home that COVID-19 is not the seasonal flu (which, by the way is estimated to have killed 61,000 Americans virtually without mention in 2017-18), it is certainly not the Spanish flu either. [read post]
15 Apr 2020, 9:59 am
The idea is hammered into our head.The governors have learned a lot. [read post]
11 Apr 2020, 5:16 am
Defendant 3M moved to exclude plaintiffs’ causation expert witnesses, in its Minnesota state court cases, under the so-called Frye standard. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 6:47 am
Under State v. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 3:43 am
In an op-ed for The New York Post, Josh Hammer maintains that in Google v. [read post]
10 Jan 2020, 12:08 pm
" Hammer v. [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 9:51 pm
By 1941, the pro-New Deal Court took this line, saying in United States v. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 1:19 pm
Two witnesses—a former State Department official and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS—declined to be interviewed, but there is no suggestion in the report, or in the inspector general’s testimony, that this altered the outcome of the investigation. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 7:18 am
Shaw v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 11:00 am
With unrivaled depth, sophistication, and attention to detail, Schwartz hammers home this point like never before. [read post]
