Search for: "STATE v. SAMPLE"
Results 1621 - 1640
of 4,544
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2015, 6:13 am
It states:`12. [read post]
6 Jun 2022, 7:41 am
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Daniels v. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 1:59 pm
In Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 7:34 pm
But as Judge Rakoff sums up the conundrum in United States v. [read post]
5 May 2011, 5:00 am
Schofield v. [read post]
14 Dec 2011, 7:19 am
Realistically, although the statute also provides for proof of intoxication through a saliva sample, this is very infrequent, and in this writer’s experience, has never been the basis for a DWI charge under V & T 1192 (2). [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 4:50 am
The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court issued a ruling several months ago in State v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 4:54 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 2:21 pm
Ramirez, 967 F.2d 1413, 1416 (9th Cir. 2012) (stating that “[t]he right to bodily privacy is fundamental” and noting that “common sense” and “decency” protect a parolee’s right not to be observed by an officer of the opposite sex while producing a urine sample); York v. [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 5:16 am
Sinclair Oil Corp. v. [read post]
4 Aug 2009, 3:42 am
In the United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 9:22 am
S248726), Ward v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 9:00 am
One sample that was recently tested was over 60 percent chrysotile asbestos. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 4:11 am
Supreme Court’s decision last year in Young v. [read post]
26 Mar 2008, 4:44 pm
Today, SCOTUS heard oral argument in Indiana v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 4:05 am
As a result, an independent, out-of-state lab is retesting about 2,300 drug samples. [read post]
15 May 2015, 3:00 am
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh reported on the Second Circuit’s recent opinion in United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 7:40 am
Additional Resources:Carl v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 11:45 am
State v. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 6:12 am
As stated by the judges’ decisions in Unwired Planet v Huawei and TCL v Ericsson, respectively: “Based on my assessment of both experts, I am sure the disagreement represents cases in which reasonable people can differ. [read post]
