Search for: "State v. Bird" Results 81 - 100 of 1,014
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Aug 2010, 8:55 am
Unsurprisingly, DirecTV filed its petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc on August 9th, seeking rehearing of the Cappuccitti v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 7:08 pm by Sme
Regents of New Mexico State University (10th Cir., August 6, 2015) (affirming various judgments against plaintiffs for lack of proper briefing)*Martin v. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 6:35 am by Associates and Bruce L. Scheiner
Although it found the defense failure to disclose the bird damage photos “disturbing,” it stated plaintiff failed to show how she was prejudiced. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 2:49 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Tulalip Tribes (Criminal Law - Exclusion)State Courts Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2017.html Lundgren v. [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 10:00 am
The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 12:37 pm by Danny Jacobs
It turns out in 1923 he made a bronze scuplture, “Bird in Space,” that he shipped to the United States in 1927. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 12:02 pm
Again a huge congratulations to the panel for an insightful discussion, Eleonora on her book, and thanks to Bird & Bird for hosting the event! [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 9:03 pm by Gordon Firemark
For a free 30-day trial and 25% off your first 6 months of Clio, sign up at www.goclio.com and enter promotional code [ENTLAW]” Or,  just visit http://entertainmentlawupdate.com/clio SHOW NOTES Monkey Photographer – follow up http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/monkeys-selfie-cannot-be-copyrighted-us-regulators-say/ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/a-mural-painted-by-an-726547… [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 7:02 am by Gordon Smith
District Court for the Southern District of California in Protect Our Communities Foundation v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
It doesn’t make the stop unlawful if there is a subsidiary purpose – “killing two birds with one stone” – but the permitted purpose must be the “true and dominant purpose behind the act” (R v Southwark Crown Court ex p. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 7:54 am by Walter James
Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released it opinion in the matter styled United States v. [read post]