Search for: "Doe v. Watson" Results 21 - 40 of 528
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 May 2010, 2:02 pm by Kent Scheidegger
Here is a bit more explanation of the odd case of Robertson v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 6:58 am by Mark S. Humphreys
This issue was also discussed in the 1994, Texas Supreme Court case styled, Allstate Insurance Company v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 8:51 am by Pilar G. Kraman
Thus, “Watson’s label . . . does not provide the basis for a justiciable Article III controversy of sufficient ‘reality.’”  [read post]
7 Dec 2012, 1:48 pm by Dennis Crouch
Watson Pharmaceuticals, 12-416 (SCOTUS 2012) The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the pharmaceutical reverse-payment case. [read post]
18 Sep 2011, 10:11 pm by Patty Salkin
In this case, since the ordinance does not require Watson to dedicate any portion of his property to public use, the court rejected the argument that Nollan applied. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 10:47 pm
This position has been supported by the Children's Guardian although he does not agree to X being named. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 2:56 pm by Kent Scheidegger
Texas does not have the kind of rule that Arizona does, categorically precluding any ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal, which the Supreme Court said is what triggers Martinez's narrow exception to the general Coleman v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 7:49 am by Gregory Forman
Evidently some are concerned that this bill negates the holding of McLeod v. [read post]
22 May 2017, 12:04 am by John Diekman
Practice point: Article 31 is not a statute specifically exempting public records from disclosure under FOIL, and FOIL does not bar the simultaneous use of both CPLR 3101 and FOIL in order to procure discovery.Case in point:  Smith v. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 10:48 am
A Ninth Circuit panel today has an interesting ruling upholding an unusual condition of supervised release in US v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 8:48 am by James Bickford
In a per curiam order on Monday, the Court dismissed Robertson v. [read post]