Search for: "State v. Grooms" Results 1 - 20 of 345
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2017, 5:45 pm by Brian Shiffrin
 The Court stated,  In arguing that points should be assessed to defendant under risk factor 7, the People conflate the concepts of grooming a victim and promoting a relationship for purposes of victimization. [read post]
21 Jan 2020, 12:31 pm by Olivia F. Fajen
Of course, pet grooming products must still comply with packaging and labeling requirements governed by FTC and state consumer protection laws, and any claims about the efficacy of the product must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. [read post]
11 Nov 2007, 4:28 pm
The court also rejected First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges to the grooming policy.In Talbert v. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 11:40 pm
Plaintiff had claimed that he should be allowed to grow his hair for religious reasons despite prison grooming requirements.In Fisher v. [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 7:52 am by Howard Friedman
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Holt v. [read post]