Search for: "Smart v. State"
Results 121 - 140
of 2,565
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
State v. Outing and Change Blindness: Will the Connecticut Supreme Court Respect Empirical Evidence?
29 Jul 2009, 10:01 pm
Participants were less likely to notice the change when they were distracted while watching the videoDid most of you - judges, lawyers, law professors, and smart people in other professors - know about change blindness? [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 10:28 am
That's why I think the State was smart to note that each individual false statement, standing alone, could've secured the total monetary amount. [read post]
18 Nov 2020, 7:09 am
In Sanchez v. [read post]
18 Nov 2020, 7:09 am
In Sanchez v. [read post]
4 Dec 2009, 12:44 am
State v. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 1:03 pm
v=nGIFqBCepv0&feature=player_embedded [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 11:50 am
When I read Padilla v. [read post]
14 Sep 2013, 9:00 pm
United States v. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 3:43 pm
Plaintiff's an attorney who entered into a stipulation with the State Bar of California in response to two disciplinary proceedings brought against her, and later decided that she wasn't psyched about those agreements, so filed a lawsuit against the State Bar to try to get out of them. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 7:49 pm
See Pardee Homes v. [read post]
9 Jan 2020, 4:56 pm
Pearson- if you're listening- and we hope you are, here are some things you can challenge our State Attorney on. [read post]
21 Jun 2015, 6:18 pm
., Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Northwest Territories have all found these provisions as unconstitutional, culminating in the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 2:35 pm
” Garrou v. [read post]
11 Aug 2009, 5:30 am
College of Dental Surgeons of Puerto Rico v. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 9:01 pm
State v. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 7:21 pm
Lopez and United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 12:08 pm
United States. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 8:22 am
And, now, in Roberts v. [read post]
23 May 2022, 1:04 pm
The problem is those pesky state usury laws. [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 3:03 pm
Since none of the available prior art documents discloses the effect of reducing the loss of volatile components from the glass composition, as stated in the claim, it may thus be considered a novelty-imparting technical feature within the meaning of decision G 2/88 [10.3]. [read post]
