Search for: "State v. C. S." Results 1841 - 1860 of 37,715
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jul 2023, 1:44 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (on the application of Afzal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 7th June 2023. [read post]
Further, the judge did not consider the evidence of one of MFP’s experts which asserted that the dosages stated in claim 9 would be obvious to try to the skilled person. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 12:30 am by Sotiris Paphitis
Specifically, concerning Article 4(2)(b), the protection against disclosing a journalist’s sources had already been considered an essential component of the journalist’s freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR (Goodwin v United Kingdom). [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 4:34 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” Specifically, Constantine Cannon’s retainer agreement with plaintiff states “[Constantine Cannon] agrees to retain Ms. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:37 am by Eric Goldman
To get around this, Haywood argued that the court was blurring 230(c)(1)’s protection for leaving up content with 230(c)(2)(A)’s protection for removing content, citing Justice Thomas’ Malwarebytes statement. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Similarly, petitioner's newly-asserted New York State unspecified constitutional religious freedom argument may not be considered for the first time on reargument, and, in any event, it is unavailing (see Kane v De Blasio, 623 F Supp 3d 339 [SD NY 2022] [City policy requiring workers in school settings to be vaccinated not unconstitutional]). [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Similarly, petitioner's newly-asserted New York State unspecified constitutional religious freedom argument may not be considered for the first time on reargument, and, in any event, it is unavailing (see Kane v De Blasio, 623 F Supp 3d 339 [SD NY 2022] [City policy requiring workers in school settings to be vaccinated not unconstitutional]). [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Pending Bills California’s financial climate risk disclosure bill, known as the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261), passed the State Senate on May 30 with a vote of 27-8 and is now before the state Assembly.[13] It would require covered businesses with annual gross revenues of more than $500 million to prepare and make public a “climate-related financial risk report disclosing the entity’s climate-related financial risk and measures… [read post]