Search for: "SMITH v. STATE OF MAINE"
Results 81 - 100
of 713
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Apr 2010, 10:23 pm
See Rodriguez, 106 S.W.3d at 228-29 (holding that appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside his home where the drug dog sniffed because the front door area was not enclosed, it was used as a main entrance to the house, and it was not protected from observation by passersby); see also Smith v. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 7:23 pm
In PLIVA v. [read post]
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 5:18 am
Similarly, Hacon HHJ stated in Teva v Novartis [2022] EWHC 2847 (Pat): “It seems that there was little or no interaction between Novartis’ three experts during the preparation of their evidence. [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 4:31 pm
JonesIn United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2024, 9:45 am
Me.) in Doe v. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 8:15 am
It is for this reason that Smith v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 3:35 am
It claims that the main purpose of the anti-discrimination law is not to regulate conduct but speech: “Colorado seeks to compel [Smith’s] speech in order to excise certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 7:21 am
Kentucky and Smith v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 2:50 am
They ceased to be perceived as the main threat to human rights, and the bar started to rise in terms of what was expected of them. [read post]
25 May 2022, 10:48 am
By: Calvin Smith [5/25/22] One of the main reasons people and entities file for bankruptcy is to obtain a discharge of their debts. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 9:19 am
The main offences can be found stated in sections 5 and 6 of the PCA, which prohibit: individuals corruptly soliciting or receiving bribes (section 5(a)); individuals corruptly giving or offering bribes (section 5(b)); agents corruptly accepting or obtaining bribes in relation to their principals’ business (section 6(a)); and individuals corruptly giving or offering bribes to agents in relation to their principals’ business (section 6(b)). [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 8:00 am
Yesterday, the state of Nevada filed an amicus brief I coauthored on behalf of the state of Nevada, and eight other state governments in Murr v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 10:55 am
Co. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 2:29 pm
Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). [read post]
8 Apr 2006, 1:06 am
It is not particularly surprising, the ruling specifies that The Da Vinci Code did not constitute substantial copying of Baigent and Leigh's book.The ruling by Peter Smith contains noteworthy analysis of the state of the art of the originality test in UK copyright law. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 3:02 am
Plaintiff was also granted leave to file an amended complaint setting out a RLUIPA claim.In United States v. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 2:16 pm
Smith. [read post]
3 Oct 2012, 9:00 pm
The proper vehicle for questioning the legality of field sobriety or breath tests “based merely on non-compliance with agency regulations governing the administration of such tests,” is a motion in limine, Smith v. [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 10:42 am
Case Name: Reece v. [read post]
