Search for: "State v. Hockings"
Results 1 - 20
of 38
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jul 2023, 5:01 am
Hock (Pa. 1999) (holding that police officer did not have probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct under separate subsection concerning "fighting or threatening … behavior" where Hock, during encounter with police, stated, "Fuck you, asshole," to officer). [read post]
15 May 2023, 1:53 am
On the same day, O’Callaghan J ordered that the proceeding be listed for a case management hearing on a date to be fixed in the case of Selkirk v Hocking [2023] FCA 432. [read post]
19 Feb 2023, 9:01 pm
’” West Virginia v. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 6:14 am
BMW of North Am., LLC, 26 N.Y.3d 801, 48 N.E.3d 937, 28 N.Y.S.3d 656 (2016) (affirming exclusion of Kramer); The Little Hocking Water Ass’n v. [read post]
14 Apr 2021, 3:14 am
While the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for fraud, it is time barred. [read post]
4 Aug 2019, 1:26 pm
A 2019 epidemiological study has revealed that 9.2% of cattle and 18.2% of beef contain the pathogen.[2] Another recent study has estimated that the Gram-negative bacteria is present in up to 16% of North American cattle.[3] In a 2007 study by Stephens et al., Salmonella was isolated from all of the animals sampled, while Escherichia coli O157:H7 was only isolated from 42.5% of the animals.[4] Notably, 94% of oral cavity samples, 94% of hock samples, 88% of perineum samples, 86% of ventrum… [read post]
16 May 2019, 6:30 am
Levinson and Balkin mention Shelby County v. [read post]
5 Mar 2019, 11:40 am
By Rebecca Kopp Levine In a recent case, Bresler v. [read post]
6 Dec 2018, 4:50 am
See Landau v. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court ruling in Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 5:28 pm
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 1:01 am
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 1:01 am
It rejected the Council’s claim that the County improperly piecemealed the CEQA analyses for each amendment, because, as stated in Banning Ranch Conservancy v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 4:04 pm
(2) Does the ICCTA preempt a state agency’s voluntary commitments to comply with CEQA as a condition of receiving state funds for a state owned rail line and/or leasing state-owned property? [read post]
31 May 2017, 5:30 am
State v. [read post]
11 Dec 2015, 10:48 am
Facts: This case (State of Wisconsin v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 2:00 am
The case is United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 9:29 am
” Seasoned attorneys—or those who were practicing law before the United States Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Bates v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 7:41 am
In Petrella v. [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 7:15 am
United States, 2013 U.S. [read post]
