Search for: "APPLICATION OF SMITH"
Results 161 - 180
of 7,566
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2023, 3:00 am
Supreme Court agreed to take up a case that could derail hundreds of January 6 felony prosecutions and could also deal a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 8:17 am
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Gregory Katsas countered that the government’s interpretation of the law would render it “both improbably broad and unconstitutional in many of its applications. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
In Matter of Smith v City of Norwich, 205 AD3d 140 the Appellate Division held that in the event an administrative determination is made where an evidentiary hearing is not required by law, court review is limited to whether the administrative determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. [read post]
13 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
In Matter of Smith v City of Norwich, 205 AD3d 140 the Appellate Division held that in the event an administrative determination is made where an evidentiary hearing is not required by law, court review is limited to whether the administrative determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 12:00 pm
In this piece we explain the facts of the Michigan scheme, and summarize the charges and applicable law, including for the probable cause hearing. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 6:41 am
These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present. [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 5:26 am
Smith. [read post]
5 Dec 2023, 8:37 am
It’s reported that approximately 88% of new applications are initially rejected by the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and most applicants can expect up to 3 rejections before their application is allowed. [read post]
5 Dec 2023, 5:00 am
In the case of Smith v. [read post]
4 Dec 2023, 7:41 am
In this post, Phil Woodfield and Elizabeth Lombardo of CMS comment on the Supreme Court’s decision in Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2023] UKSC 41, which was handed down on 15 November 2023. [read post]
3 Dec 2023, 9:01 pm
“[T]he Court,” it says, “spent decades scrutinizing state laws and procedures, interpreting arcane statutory provisions, clarifying constitutional standards, reviewing challenges to the methods of execution, in deciding cases that narrowed the application of the death penalty. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 3:00 am
Supreme Court rejected their application for an emergency stay. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 9:54 am
A month later, the Consorzio di Tutela della Denominazione di Origine Controllata Prosecco ('Consorzio') filed an application to register the name 'Prosecco' in respect of wines. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:50 am
The court will be considering 214 petitions and applications at this week’s conference. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 5:04 pm
When an aNADAC for retail community pharmacies is not available for the drug, the drug’s aNADAC for applicable non-retail pharmacies or wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) would be used to set the reimbursement floor. [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 11:02 am
Although it is not clear if Chesebro will be charged federally, his conduct will in any event be a key part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s trial of Trump. [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 2:00 am
In fact, many SSDI applicants are rejected initially, only to be accepted later because the requirements are so stringent. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 12:47 pm
Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 821 F.Supp. 59 (D.N.H. 1993) (holding that arbitrators’ refusal to apply the statute of limitations was not “manifest disregard” of the law).Of course, the parties’ contracts can explicitly make statutes of limitations applicable to their arbitrations. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 7:38 am
The Set Aside Application was heard along with the Recognition Application by Snowden J (as he then was). [read post]
22 Nov 2023, 6:40 am
Smith (1990), which said that governmental practices that incidentally burden religious practices do not violate the Free Exercise Clause if the practices are generally applicable to everyone, not just the religious practitioner. [read post]
