Search for: "GOODWIN v. STATE"
Results 161 - 180
of 451
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jun 2016, 9:35 am
United States v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 4:05 am
Masin, a partner at Shipman & Goodwin LLP. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 4:55 pm
Clearly, law firms are significantly behind the curve, despite law enforcement agencies and cybersecurity firms issuing repeated warnings about the risks of attacks by insiders, fraudsters, hacktivists, unscrupulous competitors and nation-states. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 4:49 pm
Since the landmark judgment in the case of Goodwin v. the United Kingdom in 1996, the European Court hung several wagons on this locomotive judgment of source protection. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 4:38 pm
Brochu of Shipman & Goodwin on their School Law blog Shared Office Space—The “Uber” of Commercial Real Estate? [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 8:57 am
Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 15-326 I/P Engine, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 7:16 am
State v. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 10:43 am
Co-authored by Kara Goodwin and Noah Finkel The U.S. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 3:42 am
On Monday, the Justices announced that they would review United States v. [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 4:07 pm
As far as sources are concerned, both UK and Strasbourg cases have recognised the important function served by journalists’ ability to protect their sources (Goodwin v UK, Mersey Care NHS Trust v. [read post]
20 Dec 2015, 4:47 am
For that point, the brief sites Seymour v. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 8:30 am
The aggrieved employee has the burden of proving that his or her employee organization’s action, or inaction, breached its “Duty of Fair Representation” DeOliveira v New York State Pub. [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 4:00 am
In Goodwin v British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) the Supreme Court upheld British Columbia’s ARP scheme as valid provincial law that does not unlawfully invade federal criminal law power or contravene section 11 of the Charter, but the Court also ruled that the seizure of a breath sample using an approved screening device (ASD) under the scheme as previously administered was an unreasonable seizure under section 8 of the Charter. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 5:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 4:32 pm
Jaroslawicz v. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 3:47 pm
United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 7:38 am
In 1825, Wayman v. [read post]
16 Aug 2015, 5:27 pm
This type of counsel is known in California as Cumis counsel, by reference to the 1984 California intermediate appellate case of San Diego Federal Credit Union v. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 1:22 pm
State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2015, 1:59 pm
” Although the procedural history of David et al. v. [read post]
