Search for: "State v. I. A. A."
Results 1781 - 1800
of 84,593
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2010, 7:53 pm
Marks v. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 8:55 am
A reminder that Jess Miers and I summarized 60+ account termination and content removal cases in this article. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 3:54 pm
In Rose v. [read post]
26 Dec 2023, 4:00 am
Supreme Court in 303 Creative v. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 10:37 am
Fittante expects that more states will look to raise additional revenues through similar taxation methods or through the misclassification of franchisees as independent contractors v. employees. [read post]
20 May 2022, 6:59 am
I wish it also meant the end of the case, but I suspect it’s onto SCOTUS instead. [read post]
31 Dec 2019, 4:47 am
State v. [read post]
18 May 2018, 5:00 am
Brian Galle agrees, Ilya and I disagree, and Jeffrey has perhaps the best bottom line: "Murphy v. [read post]
7 Jan 2017, 8:26 am
State v. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 7:24 pm
” United States v. [read post]
14 Nov 2006, 7:53 am
Lao v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 3:40 am
If the same standard of knowledge is required for 512(c)(1)(A)(i) as for (ii), what purpose does (ii) serve? [read post]
13 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court refused to defend Roe v. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 1:34 pm
The Supreme Court, in 1992’s United States v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 1:39 pm
Eventually, I may need to petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari in the case of Ware v. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 7:16 am
Within days of writing the Dudenhoeffer v. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 7:17 am
On Friday, I blogged about the case of Cervantes v. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 2:09 am
His Honour Judge Iain Hale stated the law in this way: “… Following the guidance of the Court of Appeal in Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304 , I am satisfied that the test is whether an ordinarily prudent and reasonable 13 year old schoolboy in each defendant’s situation would have realised that his actions gave rise to a risk of injury.” Lord Justice Waller stated that “The primary question should be whether the conduct of the… [read post]
17 Aug 2007, 5:22 am
The Commission concluded that when a public official uses State aircraft for State and non-State travel, the following requirements must be met: (i) there must be a bona fide State purpose for the trip; (ii) the State purpose must be the primary reason for the trip; (iii) the public official must make an accurate apportionment of the time spent between State and non-State business and promptly reimburse the… [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 2:03 pm
First, Howlett v. [read post]
