Search for: "State v. Guthrie"
Results 41 - 60
of 180
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2016, 5:41 am
Granted, by the time that the United States Court of the Appeals for the Second Circuit commented on the logos at issue in Guthrie Healthcare Systems v. [read post]
7 Jun 2016, 5:00 am
In the case of Adeniyi-Jones v. [read post]
24 May 2016, 5:22 am
In a recent May 10, 2016 decision out of the Federal Western District Court of Pennsylvania in the case of Schutte v. [read post]
1 May 2016, 1:49 pm
For example Williams v. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 5:00 am
In the case of Lamagna v. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 5:00 am
In its recent non-precedential decision in the case of Coughlin v. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 6:26 am
UNITE HERE Local 100 v. [read post]
30 Jan 2016, 3:27 pm
The conviction was later upheld in United States v. [read post]
27 Oct 2015, 6:00 am
The Court had just decided Griswold v. [read post]
4 May 2015, 5:58 pm
The court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Heien v. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 4:22 am
Or, more accurately, yes, we could, but not after People v. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 10:04 am
Guthrie v. [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 2:13 pm
Guthrie, 373 Ark. 443, 447, 284 S.W.3d 455, 457 (2008), George v. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 8:46 am
See Public Utilities Code § 2891.1, also People v. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 10:27 am
In a recent case, Winslett v. [read post]
16 Feb 2014, 4:18 pm
In Doe v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 7:08 am
The nurse had texted to his girlfriend that the plaintiff was being treated for a sexually transmitted disease, an action the state court had found neither reasonably foreseeable nor within the scope of the nurse’s employment (Doe v Guthrie Clinic, Ltd, January 27, 2014, per curiam). [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 12:22 pm
So one frequently-used example comes from the Supreme Court's opinion in Coyle v. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 10:42 am
The case of Smith v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 5:31 pm
One might have thought that the Court went out of its way to avoid finding that the primary purpose of the DNA collection at issue is “to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing,” (Indianapolis v. [read post]