Search for: "Small v. State"
Results 1581 - 1600
of 15,237
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2019, 10:14 pm
By William Abbott and Kristen Kortick Berkeley Hills Watershed Coalition v. [read post]
24 Feb 2007, 4:54 am
There’s no requirement that a patent holder create products based on the invention; to do so would give big companies an unfair advantage over small players with good ideas. [read post]
31 Aug 2020, 8:38 am
Nokia is a relatively small case: one plaintiff, one defendant, and presumably no intervenors. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 11:28 am
De Alba Pagan, 33 F.3d 125, 129 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing United States v. [read post]
12 Jul 2009, 8:29 pm
Five years later, in Wesley College v. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 6:00 am
Historically, small arms were placed on the United States Munitions List (USML). [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 4:00 am
(See for example, MDG Computers Canada Inc. et al. v. [read post]
6 Mar 2011, 5:54 am
Bank v. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 1:58 am
State and Small v. [read post]
8 Dec 2007, 7:10 am
The Court recalled that Article 56 §1 EC lays down a general prohibition on restrictions on movements of capital between member States (see, Case C-112/05 Commission v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 4:22 am
Folks who’ve been following this blog for years know that periodically I like to venture beyond New York’s borders to find and report on interesting decisions from other states in business divorce cases. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 8:00 am
Rule 9(b) states that "[i]n alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. [read post]
9 Jun 2022, 1:43 pm
Supreme Court case of Batson v. [read post]
11 Jan 2021, 12:18 pm
In United States v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 7:09 am
Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit granted en banc review in United States v. [read post]
6 Jun 2022, 2:02 pm
In United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 4:25 am
https://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2019/03/state-v-officer-aledda.htmlJudge Alan Fine presided over both trials. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 12:27 pm
The court concludes that the government interest in protecting the public as set forth in the Legislative findings of MHL § 10.01 et seq. is not effectuated by the broad mandatory detention provisions of MHL § 10.06(k), and there is significant fiscal value and very small burden to the State if it were to modify the statute to safeguard the pre-trial detention due process rights of respondents. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 10:24 am
In Bywaters v. [read post]
