Search for: "Snow v. State" Results 81 - 100 of 725
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2015, 12:31 am by John Diekman
At his deposition, plaintiff stated that it was snowing on the day of the accident, and that "lots of snow [had] accumulated everywhere. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 11:08 pm
The majority held: RFRA's stated purpose is to "restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 8:11 am by Simon Fodden
In Montgomery v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 12:10 am by John Diekman
Finally plaintiff's testimony also provided no support for the theory that the ice was old or preexisting, as he did not recall any unusual snow or ice conditions on the sidewalk when he walked there the previous night.Case:  Levene v. [read post]