Search for: "Barker v. State"
Results 141 - 160
of 423
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jan 2007, 1:20 pm
State v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 6:35 am
The Supreme Court’s 1992 Quill Corp. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2009, 7:57 am
On appeal, the Third Circuit weighed the four Barker v. [read post]
25 May 2007, 11:31 pm
See United States v. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 3:17 pm
The excellent Liz Davies of Garden Court tackled the Court of Appeal decisions in MA & Ors and the benefit cap judgment in SG & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 156. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 3:17 pm
The excellent Liz Davies of Garden Court tackled the Court of Appeal decisions in MA & Ors and the benefit cap judgment in SG & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 156. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 6:27 am
The guidance includes a detailed discussion of the three factors identified by the Eighth Circuit in its 1975 Green v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 12:18 pm
State v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:06 pm
Consequently, as there was no medical evidence establishing a recognizable link between claimant's injuries and repetitive movements associated with her work activities, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that claimant did not establish that she sustained a causally-related occupational disease (see Matter of Patalan v PAL Envtl., 202 AD3d at 1253; Matter of Barker v New York City Police Dept., 176 AD3d at 1272-1273; Matter of Glowczynski… [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:06 pm
Consequently, as there was no medical evidence establishing a recognizable link between claimant's injuries and repetitive movements associated with her work activities, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that claimant did not establish that she sustained a causally-related occupational disease (see Matter of Patalan v PAL Envtl., 202 AD3d at 1253; Matter of Barker v New York City Police Dept., 176 AD3d at 1272-1273; Matter of Glowczynski… [read post]
21 Nov 2008, 4:04 pm
In Dale v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 3:55 pm
The constitutional standard for a speedy trial was established by the United States Supreme Court in a case called Barker v. [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 10:32 am
The Court applied the analytical framework as articulated in Barker v. [read post]
7 May 2013, 4:00 am
In R. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2022, 5:57 am
Supreme Court established a four-part test for evaluating speedy trial claims in 1972’s Barker v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 12:04 pm
The state judiciary rejected these arguments, Hill v. [read post]
13 Aug 2009, 2:26 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Sep 2011, 7:12 pm
Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 121 (15 September 2011) Appeal from: Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd v Coretell Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1169 See also: Innovation Patent Claims Once Again Construed Narrowly Claim construction – whether ‘device’ encompasses apparatus in two parts In an appeal from a decision of Justice Barker in the Federal Court of Australia, a full bench of the court comprising Justices Bennett, Gilmour… [read post]
20 May 2015, 2:46 am
It stated however that the defence costs are different as they were incurred in defending the claim which had the insurer’s consent. [read post]
