Search for: "State v. Grooms" Results 61 - 80 of 438
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 May 2020, 5:02 am by Eugene Volokh
[So a Maryland appellate court held last month, I think quite correctly (and consistently with the broad trend in other states):] From Nouri v. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 10:20 am by Eric Goldman
Bill Summary The bill repeals Section 230’s immunity for publishing user-generated content with respect to state criminal prosecutions and civil claims related to CSAM. [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]
27 Dec 2019, 2:24 am by Cari Rincker
However, in a 2018 case called South Dakota v. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 11:55 am by Heather Coffman
  While the law states it is confirming existing law, rather than creating new law, employers need to ensure their practices comply with AB 5’s rules. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 8:00 am by James W. Ward
Most significantly, this impacts workplace dress codes and grooming standards that prohibited certain hairstyles. [read post]