Search for: "In Re Grand Jury No. 83-2"
Results 1 - 20
of 28
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2022, 9:53 am
[Bowies were regulated like other knives; knives were sometimes regulated like handguns] This post describes and analyzes nineteenth century state statutes on Bowie knives. [read post]
5 Jan 2022, 7:16 am
The case, In Re Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation (US DC NJ) MDL No. 2875 (RBK)is a products liability case that concerns the sale in the U.S. of generic, prescription Valsartan pharmaceuticals, found by the Food and Drug Administration [“FDA”] to contain cancer‐causing contaminants. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 1:09 pm
Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80–81, 83, 92–93 (1972); N. [read post]
1 Feb 2021, 11:26 am
§ 2518(8)(b); In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 841 F.2d 1048, 1053 n.9 (11th Cir. 1988) (“applications” in the statute includes affidavits and related documentation). [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 10:57 pm
Subjective and Objective Standards for Determining the Parties’ Intentions Depending on the jurisdiction, courts use either an objective or subjective standard to determine the parties’ intentions.[30] In jurisdictions that use a subjective standard, the parties’ intentions are considered a question of fact, not a question of law, and courts thus defer the question to the jury to determine.[31] In jurisdictions that use an objective standard, courts look at “what a… [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 6:58 am
The bottom line is that (1) the probe as it developed is not one that should have been conducted by a federal prosecutor conducting a criminal investigation, and (2) Barr’s tendentious running commentary on the investigation violates Justice Department rules, politicized the investigation and damaged the credibility of whatever Durham uncovers. [read post]
8 Feb 2020, 9:58 am
The last day appellee delivered linens to Atrium was on September 2, 2013. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:14 am
Background On 7 July 2015, Defendant was indicted by a Cabarrus County Grand Jury on four counts of felony embezzlement. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm
Crane, 50 Mich 182, 15 NW 73 (1883); Grand Rapids, etc R Co v Cheseboro, 74 Mich 466; 42 NW 66 (1889); Union Depot Co v Backus, 92 Mich 34; 52 NW 790 (1892). [read post]
3 May 2018, 1:50 pm
” This is also the reasoning behind grand jury secrecy, a principle often recognized by the Supreme Court. [read post]
3 May 2018, 11:23 am
See In Re Grand Jury Investigation, 59 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 1995). [read post]
29 Jan 2017, 4:00 am
Pour sa part, le ministère public allègue que c’est le plafond de 30 mois qui s’applique, car le procès s’instruit devant un «juge sans jury» en vertu de l’article 552 du Code criminel (C.Cr.) et non devant un «juge de la cour provinciale» au sens de Jordan et de l’article 2 C.Cr. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 10:59 am
”Id. at *5-6 (quoting In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381-83 (9th Cir. 1996)).The Ninth Circuit identified a circuit split (are you listening, Supremes?) [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 2:51 am
Civ. 1ère, No. 13-23566.March was all about the 'Blurred Lines' in copyright and a US Jury's decision to award $7.3 million to the Estate of Marvin Gaye on the basis that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s soul-inspired pop song "Blurred Lines" too closely mirrored Gaye’s 1977 single "Got to Give It Up". [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 1:44 pm
Against Christ Anglican Church in Mobile, Alabama (plaintiff was the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast---the suit settled in 2001 before trial, and Anglican congregation moved out; they built a brand-new church in 2005, while the historic Episcopal site became the cathedral of the Diocese that same year)2.-4. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 3:41 pm
83. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
Michal Freedman, and Leon Gordis, Reference Guide on Epidemiology 549, 617 & n.211, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (3ed ed. 2011)[RMSE]. 2. [read post]
5 Jun 2014, 12:14 pm
Public Communications, 83 A.3d 205 (Pa. [read post]
4 Jun 2014, 7:41 pm
& Light Co., 83 So. 19, 20 (La. 1919) Michigan Wilson v. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 9:58 am
The government's need for the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings is protected by temporarily restraining Twitter from divulging any information about the underlying grand jury subpoena until after this Court issues a final ruling in this matter. [read post]
