Search for: "Matter of O N W & H" Results 141 - 160 of 209
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm by admin
” The authors begin their analysis of specific causation with a brief acknowledgement that our legal system could abandon any effort to set standards or require rigorous thinking on the matter by simply leaving the matter to the jury.[9] After all, this laissez-faire approach had been the rule of law for centuries. [read post]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Harper & James, in their tort treatise, said much the same thing: "conformity to the legislative standard. . .may so clearly constitute due care under the circumstances of any given case that the court will decide it does as a matter of law. [read post]
29 Jul 2017, 5:32 pm by Wolfgang Demino
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, `to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. [read post]
4 Aug 2019, 1:26 pm by Bill Marler
It all seemed so easy and  matter-of-fact in retrospect, as Rose recalls: When [the whole roasted hog] was done, I served it up. [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 6:19 am
  The Court of Appeals also noted that [o]n appeal, we must interpret Washington's news media shield law, [Revised Code of Washington §] 5.68.010, and determine whether it protects the information sought by this subpoena. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 7:00 am by Jeffrey Krivis
How an appropriate discount is determined in such a situation is a matter of justifying legal theories in relation to financial data and risk. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm by ligitsec
Justice O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This case requires us to consider to what extent the “fair use” provision of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976, (hereinafter the Copyright Act) 17 U.S.C. [read post]
7 Sep 2022, 5:23 am by Eugene Volokh
[Jack Goldsmith and I will have this article out in the Texas Law Review early next year, and I'm serializing it here. [read post]
21 Nov 2021, 9:00 pm by Samuel Estreicher and Ryan Amelio
”[20] OSHA in the 1991 Standard relied on its reasoning from the 1978 Occupational Exposure to Lead Final Standard (the “1978 Standard”) where it rejected biological testing of workers as a means of monitoring employer compliance with occupational lead exposure limits.[21] In the 1978 Standard, OSHA concluded that “[a]ttempting to compel workers to subject themselves to detailed medical examinations presents the possibility of clashes with legitimate privacy and religious… [read post]