Search for: "Bear v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 14,831
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2024, 1:58 pm
Nollan v. [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 9:57 am
I Dig Texas, LLC v. [read post]
14 Apr 2024, 1:05 pm
Co. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2024, 7:22 am
And that bears its cost. [read post]
13 Apr 2024, 3:33 pm
Prelude to Litigation Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) was a widely used direct α-adrenergic agonist used as a medication to control cold symptoms and to suppress appetite for weight loss.[1] In 1972, an over-the-counter (OTC) Advisory Review Panel considered the safety and efficacy of PPA-containing nasal decongestant medications, leading, in 1976, to a recommendation that the agency label these medications as “generally recognized as safe and effective. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 1:10 pm
(NA) In Sheetz v. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 10:56 am
California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 7:04 pm
The 55-page ruling in State of Washington v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 4:00 am
Holder and Rucho v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
Rev. 965 (2017); Atherton v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
That is a lesson from John Courtney Murray.Murray died in 1967, before Pope Paul VI issued his famous letter against contraception and the Supreme Court decided Roe v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 2:01 pm
Yes, the statute says that you can remove, even from your home state in a diversity case, if the defendant who resides in that state is not yet served. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 8:37 am
INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) states that “An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled . . . is inadmissible”, and the BIA held in Matter of V-X-, 26 I&N Dec. 147 (BIA 2013) , that a grant of asylum is not an “admission” for these purposes, leaving asylees subject to the grounds of inadmissibility (although with the proviso that they cannot be removed unless their asylum status is terminated). [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:03 am
Other states have similar, recent decisions [see Western Millwork v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 7:03 am
See, e.g., State v. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm
Further, their manager stated they do not remove this section of the machine during cleaning. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 3:04 am
” Nicholson v. [read post]
5 Apr 2024, 2:44 am
In this post, Holly Ranfield, Associate at CMS, preview the decision awaited from the Supreme Court in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV. [read post]
4 Apr 2024, 2:31 pm
Pennsylvania State University v. [read post]
4 Apr 2024, 8:33 am
It may be thought the practice of requiring scrutiny of applications to reinstate patents might be unpopular with patentees which, whatever the outcome of the appeal, have to bear their own costs and those of the UKIPO. [read post]
