Search for: "Bones v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 1,546
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2023, 4:39 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
McKenna: we can’t really mean that a state of uncertainty is actionable—if we did, “I don’t know whether X makes this” would be actionable/part of the “confused” group. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 4:55 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Nine months ago, we wrote about a 20% shareholder, Alvin Clayton Fernandes, whose bare bones petition Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Frank P. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 1:03 pm by familoo
And having found myself doing a mini-review of recent authorities for the purposes of a talk I’m doing tomorrow, I realised I had the bare bones of that update laid out in front of me. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 7:57 am by James Romoser
When we asked it to name three noteworthy opinions of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Question #11), it started off strong: It identified (and correctly summarized) her majority opinion in United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
” (This latter point becomes the focus of my later essay on A Mantra in Search of Meaning, also published as part of a symposium, this one at the University of North Carolina Law School celebrating the 40th anniversary of Baker v. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 12:06 pm by JURIST Staff
” In this regard, it is crucial to examine the judgment rendered in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd. [read post]
14 Nov 2022, 4:56 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
The ultra-bare bones Sale Agreement, which Bakr claimed proved the existence of a general partnership, stated that Bakr bought a 33% interest in a “mobile food vending operating location” in Times Square. [read post]
22 Oct 2022, 12:38 pm by Drew Falkenstein
The Florida Department of Health, CDC, public health and regulatory officials in several other states, and the U.S. [read post]
2 Oct 2022, 5:12 pm by Aaron Moss
Ironically, that’s the one defense that, per the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Google v. [read post]
On September 23, 2022, the Vermont Supreme Court became the first state high court to reject the notion that quintessential issues of fact concerning the effect of a virus on property can somehow be decided without evidence, without experts and without anything more than bare-bones allegations. [read post]